Well first off every thing will be more expensive because we will have more money since we are not using it to buy food any more. we would get more money, save more money, and every thing will cost a lot more. Many people will lose jobs because they won't be making food any more (like people at mcdonalds) and then to get a job people will need higher intellect. The population of cows, pigs, and other animals that we eat will rise and they won't be domesticated any more (unless you want to keep a pet chicken, thats fine with me) and the evolution line might change. Then the downside is that the people live in a climate where it is mostly cloudy and dark will be more hungry and will probably move to warmer areas where they can get enough food. People in warmer climate can just sit outside for a few hours and they will be full and not hungry. As you can see if people began to use photosynthesis to get food. many things will change.
I hope this helped. :3
<span />
Answer:
ang an carnivores at herbivores
That evolution could not possibly happen in such a short period of time, but instead occurs over long amounts of time such as billions of years. Also, we did not come from monkeys we have common ancestors with them.
Answer:
Yes, the faster the organism breathes, the greater air exchange. The blood will increase & stimulate much faster.
Answer:
If mother 1 is a carrier of hemophilia, it is likely that her son would in fact have hemophilia while the son of mother 2 does not. Mother 1 would have the genotype XᴴXʰ, meaning she has one recessive allele for hemophilia, while the father would have the genotype XᴴY, and would neither be afflicted with hemophilia nor carry it. If you do a punnett square, it shows that the son of mother 1 would have a 50% chance of having hemophilia, since he wouldn't have a second X chromosome with a dominant allele to mask the recessive hemophilia allele. Also, if mother 2 has the homozygous dominant genotype XᴴXᴴ despite the father having hemophilia and the genotype XʰY, a punnett square for this couple proves that their son would have a 0% chance of having hemophilia. Therefore, it is very likely that their sons were not switched at birth and the correct answer is D: The fact that the father in couple 2 has hemophilia would not predispose his son to hemophilia. The first couple has no valid claim. Hope this helped!
