Continental Survival

A. it was bitter cold at the equator.
B. continental glaciers advanced and retreated several times over large areas of North America and Europe.
C. tropical vegetation grew in the central Great Plains of North America and in the Ukraine of Europe.
D. large areas of North America and Europe were continuously buried under continental ice sheets.
E. dinosaurs struggled unsuccessfully for survival during the cold glacial stages.

B. Continental glaciers advanced and retreated several times over large areas of North America and Europe.

"During a glacial, the glacier experiences minor advances and retreats."

2008-04-04 11:25:49 by j

Geographical islands have represented evolutive laboratories for species and a challenge for animals and plants that have had to adapt to the ...

1. What are the four main gases that make up the Earths atmosphere, and list the approximate percentage of each?
2. Name the three main layes of the Earths atmosphere and the range of distances above the Earths surface that each covers.
3. What causes the winds to blow over the earths surface?
4. What causes areas of high and low air pressure to form in the atmosphere?
5. On a weather map, what are isobars? What do they measure?
6. What does it mean when isobars are close together on a map?
7. What instruments would you use to measure atmospheric pressure?
8. Where are low pressure and high pressure system most likely to form on the Earths surface?
9. In what direction do high and low pressure weather system rotate?
10. Why are oceans considered to be the driving force behind most of the worlds weather patterns?
11. Provide and explain one example of how oceans can effect the climate in one area of the globe.
12. Explain why very intense low pressure systems (cyclones) get stronger as the ocean temperature rises.
13. Describe the three main types of clouds?
14. In what area of the atmosphere would you find the ozone layer and how does it protect the earth’s surface?
15. What was the major cause of the damage to the ozone layer?
16. What are tectonics plates and how are they linked to the earthquakes?
17. On what instrument are earthquakes measured and what is the name if the scale used?
18. What is the difference between a fold and la fault in the Earths crust?
19. What is the difference between a syncline and anticline fold?
20. What is continental drift?
21. Species survival depends on both biotic and abiotic factors. Describe what is meant by this and give examples of each.
23. What is meant by term “Natural selection” in relation to the evolution of species?
24. What is the difference between convergent and divergent evolution?

www.ask.com
www.wikipedia.org

You really do not expect us to do your homework for you, do you?

2008-11-11 00:02:50 by Nick

Price: $25.00

The theory of evolution depends upon three conditions.

Life Happens
Creative Mutations
Lots of Time
Let's look at each of these conditions, one at a time.

Life Happens
According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (Presumably, a lightning bolt and a deformed assistant were involved.)

The February 1988 issue of EARTH magazine is a special issue on Origins. The cover promises an article that will tell us "How Life Really Began". The article itself, however, says that scientists just don't know. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, states in that article that the origin of life is still unknown.

There are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life.

Pinocchio
Frosty the Snowman
Most scientists consider these two reports to be false.

The notion that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.

Creative Mutations
Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. One does not expect a lizard to hatch from a chicken egg. Chickens have baby chickens. It is established scientific fact that like begets like.

On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Only a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are arguably beneficial. It is well known that mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.

It is claimed that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals

scales had to have mutated into hair
breasts had to have evolved from nothing
hard-shelled externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb
etc.
None of these transformations have ever been observed in a laboratory.


The notion that random genetic changes can produce creative mutations is not consistent with scientific observation.

Lots of Time
Sadly, it is well known that living things can die. This has often been observed. It has NOT been scientifically demonstrated that a dead thing can come to life. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, something dead will come to life by some method or another.

It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some critters will eventually evolve into other critters.

Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.

If we observe present processes, and make the assumption that they have have been going on at the same rate since they started, we generally come to the conclusion that the Earth could not be billions of years old. Some of the processes that have been studied that give young ages for the Earth are:

Continental erosion
Sea floor sediments
Salinity of the oceans
Helium in the atmosphere
Carbon 14 in the atmosphere
Decay of the Earth's magnetic field

The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which are dated by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.

The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced many feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours. Radioactive measurements of these rocks show them to be millions of years old, too. But we know they were formed in 1980 because scientists saw them formed.

The notion that the Earth is billions of years old is not consistent with a considerable amount of scientific observation.
Conclusion
The theory of evolution is not believed because of scientific evidence. It is believed DESPITE scientific evidence. Science is against the theory of evolution.
Wow, from the answers some of you guys gave you boviously didn't read the entire piece.

Please read the whole thing before you write you ignorant responses.
Face it, evolution basically says that it rained on the rocks for millions of years and life just popped out of nowhere. And you say creationists believe in farytales.

Whether the 6 days of creation are seen as literal 24 hour time periods, or as an age/era (possibly constituting billions of years), the fact remains that God is the Creator of all.

I find it rather ironic that the Atheists will contend that Creationists are being dishonest with the facts...that we somehow skew them to support or own conclusions. Yet these same people will turn around and try to cloak theories of abiogenesis as being "scientific". How about simply being honest? Abiogenesis has never been observed, and there is no plausible rationale to think that it is even remotely possible.

Atheists put their "faith" in mutated DNA somehow producing new species, I put my faith in a Creator...

2006-06-06 06:52:07 by Vincent Valentine

Price: $34.95

The theory of evolution depends upon three conditions.

Life Happens
Creative Mutations
Lots of Time
Let's look at each of these conditions, one at a time.

Life Happens
According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals had to combine to form Frankencell, which came to life somehow. (Presumably, a lightning bolt and a deformed assistant were involved.)

The February 1988 issue of EARTH magazine is a special issue on Origins. The cover promises an article that will tell us "How Life Really Began". The article itself, however, says that scientists just don't know. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, states in that article that the origin of life is still unknown.

There are only two documented cases of inanimate objects coming to life.

Pinocchio
Frosty the Snowman
Most scientists consider these two reports to be false.

The notion that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.

Creative Mutations
Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. One does not expect a lizard to hatch from a chicken egg. Chickens have baby chickens. It is established scientific fact that like begets like.

On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Only a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are arguably beneficial. It is well known that mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.

It is claimed that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals

scales had to have mutated into hair
breasts had to have evolved from nothing
hard-shelled externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb
etc.
None of these transformations have ever been observed in a laboratory.


The notion that random genetic changes can produce creative mutations is not consistent with scientific observation.

Lots of Time
Sadly, it is well known that living things can die. This has often been observed. It has NOT been scientifically demonstrated that a dead thing can come to life. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, something dead will come to life by some method or another.

It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some critters will eventually evolve into other critters.

Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. It is extremely improbable that you can toss a coin and have it come up heads 100 times in a row. But if you toss coins long enough, eventually it will happen. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.

If we observe present processes, and make the assumption that they have have been going on at the same rate since they started, we generally come to the conclusion that the Earth could not be billions of years old. Some of the processes that have been studied that give young ages for the Earth are:

Continental erosion
Sea floor sediments
Salinity of the oceans
Helium in the atmosphere
Carbon 14 in the atmosphere
Decay of the Earth's magnetic field

The old ages for the Earth come primarily from the ages of rocks, which are dated by the presumed ages of the fossils in them. Radioactive measurements of rocks are based on assumptions that were chosen to make the radioactive measurements agree with the presumed ages of the fossils.

The eruption of Mount St. Helens produced many feet of stratified rocks which look millions of years old, but were produced in days or hours. Radioactive measurements of these rocks show them to be millions of years old, too. But we know they were formed in 1980 because scientists saw them formed.

The notion that the Earth is billions of years old is not consistent with a considerable amount of scientific observation.
Conclusion
The theory of evolution is not believed because of scientific evidence. It is believed DESPITE scientific evidence. Science is against the theory of evolution.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~do_while/sa ge/
I hear ya Yoda, great way to show your ignorance. You could have tried to refute the points, but maybe that would take big words that you might not understand. Plus, you didn't have to be an a**hole about it.
chem says: "It has been fairly well documented that species do mutate according to their environment."


That's not evolution. Even creationists believe in changes whithin the species. The Bible says to "produce after your own KIND", not spiecies.

But evolution where one animal turns into a different animal does not exist, and hasn't.

Every farmer on the planet counts on evolution not happening. When they mate a cow and bull they expect a calf every time. When they plant corn the get corn.

Evolution is a farce.
Danielle S, God has always existed. The bible says He is like a wheel whithin a wheel. He is the Beginning and the End. HE created the universe, time and space. He is all powerful and just spoke it into existence. If you could just behold the awesome power of the Holy Spirit you would changed forever.

I used to be an atheist too. Now I am enlightened.

Bless you all.
I meant chim, not chem on the above reply.

wow, that's really interesting. I'm gald i read the whole thing, thanks for putting this up here. Where did you find all this information? I'd love it if i could look into it even more, or if you could do some more research and put your findings up here again.

2006-06-27 07:19:47 by Vincent Valentine

1:Hamilton's domestic program reflected his belief that the

A)survival of the federal government depended on the republican virtues of the common people.
B)nation had to be industrially self-sufficient and the national government had to maintain authority over the states.
C)United States' best opportunity for economic survival lay in its traditional source of strength, agriculture.
D)states needed to reassert power over the national government, because individual self-sacrifice and virtue were most effective on the local level.

2Hamilton wanted the federal government to take over in full the Revolutionary debt of the Continental Congress and the states because he believed that

A)this would cause a heavy loss to speculators in certificates.
B)the payment of all such obligations was guaranteed in the Constitution.
C)this would cause well-to-do creditors to favor the new federal government and the extension of its powers.
D)the states unanimously favored such a policy

1. B
2. C

Show your teacher www.bubbabrain.com for a neat way to study. Try it out yourself...it really works

www.bubbabrain.com is fun.

2008-04-04 12:08:42 by Courtne{Y}