At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
In testing for light and dark preferences in cricket habitats, what would be an unavoidable source of experimental error? Cost of the project Amount of light exposure Determination of cricket preference Variation in habitat terrain
this is some hard stuff is there a right answer
its one of those choices its hard
cost of project cancelled
cricket preference doesnt really matter
amount of light exposure is my choice
g. A computer simulation of plant pollination involves 2 “parent” plants. However, in nature, plants most pollination would involve many plants randomly sharing pollen, depending on the pollinator. Using a living specimen would improve understanding because Living models have variables that a computer model cannot account for. Ecosystems are simple, and computer models are complex. You will get the same results each time with a living model. Computer models are not limited by “built in” parameters.
i hust have two question left after this one
how do you know the first answer is right
the one before am go9ng to ask my teacher
the last three statements seem to be false they are misleading
the first one living models have variables that a computer cannot account for should be right
In 2009, paleontologists working in Ethiopia found the fossil of a 4.4 million year old ape-like species. They have since named this specimen “Ardi” which is short for Ardipithicus ramidus. This fossil find will be highly investigated because of previous frauds like the “Piltdown Man” that was a fake hominid fossil and was a mixture of elephant, medieval human, orangutan, hippopotamus and dog parts. The serious investigation of this fossil is important because If an observation does not agree with an accepted scientific theory, it must be thrown out because it is not valid. Observations must always agree with accepted scientific theory. Observations are sometimes mistakes or fraudulent. Theories are often wrong.
observations are sometimes mistakes or fraudulents