the first one is renewable and the second is it will destroy ecosystems
It is true that it is possible for a population to not evolve for a while.
There is something called the Hardy-Weinberg theorem, which characterizes the distributions of genotype frequencies in populations that are not evolving.
There are 5 Hardy-Weinberg assumptions:
- no mutation
- random mating
- no gene flow
- infinite population size
- and no selection (natural nor forced).
You can see that some of these are kinda extreme and really hard to get, but with approximations, we can work.
For example, instead of an "infinite population size" we have enough with a really large population, such that genetic drift is negligible.
Concluding, yes, it is possible (but really difficult) for a population to not evolve for a while (at least, in nature), as long as the 5 assumptions above are met.
If you want to learn more, you can read:
brainly.com/question/19431143
Answer:
there is an abundance of fertile soil
climate and fertile soil are crucial for plant growth
Answer:
Cause: Dropping the egg
Effect: The egg breaks
Explanation:
Assuming there is no comfort for the egg when it reaches the ground or surface you're dropping it on, the egg will break. The egg breaks because you dropped it 4 feet, making the effect be the broken egg.
When the population is large and dense.
Hope this helps:)
