Answer:
this is not a question it is a statement
Explanation:
Answer: The Answer is A.) Burning of fossil fuels
Explanation:
<span>If it loses that 1 electron (0 electrons, 1 proton, 1 neutron) it become an ion that is positively charge because it has more protons than electrons. [Ignore the neutrons] </span>
<span>If it gains an electron (2 electrons, 1 proton, 1 neutron) it becomes an ion that is negatively charge because it has more electrons than protons </span>
<span>A molecule - when 2 or more "different" elements combine or when 2 or more of the "same" elements combine </span>
<span>1 proton 1 electron <----- that is considered to be neutral </span>
<span>3 protons, 3 electrons <----- neutral </span>
<span>5 protons 5 electrons <----- neutral </span>
<span>6 protons, 5 electrons <-- positive ion [more protons than electrons] </span>
<span>5 protons, 8 electrons <--- negative ion [more electrons than protons] </span>
Some balls will drop slower than others.
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
