Want this question answered?
true
Yes. It's just like any other computer, but smaller and simpler. As such, it does less.
true (horseisle)
This statement is not precisely true. For example shrews and mice are considerably smaller than humans and yet their organ systems are almost the same. Humans have the unique feature of a larger brain but mice have a more highly developed sense of smell and other adaptations. Different types of complexity that suit the environmental niche they fill. Comparisons between mammals show obvious similarities regardless of size.Comparisons between various Phyla yield large simple animals and small complex ones.The term "smaller" refers to threshold limits based on the number of cells the animal has and it's genetic complexity as opposed to physical size. Caveat: Some comparatively simple animals have many more chromosomes than much more complex animals so number of chromosomes is not a direct indication of complexity.Single celled animals cannot compare in complexity to animals such a the rotifer which has a few hundred cells and can reproduce sexually or parthenogenically, has some discrete organ systemsand various methods of locomotion.
False. A smaller cell has a higher ratio of surface area to volume, making moving the amount of required nutrients simpler.
Catabolism is the breakdown of larger, more complex molecules into smaller, simpler ones.Energy is released and some is trapped and made available for work.
yes it is true
Polysaccharides
No.
I believe it's true. ya see, God puts diffrent life spans to diffrent animals. the smaller the animal, the shorter it'll live. But, the bigger the animal, the longer it's life span. but the turtle, for example, can live for about 120 years. but the Siamese betta can live only about 2 years. That certainly would not be the case with dogs. Smaller dogs typically live longer than large dogs.
cells make up tissues therefore you could safely assume that cells are simpler,
True.