Similarities Between

The play 'The Crucible' shows characters being punished harshly based on baseless accusations that they are dangerous to society. Similarly, Japanese American were detained during World War II for no other reason than being of Japanese descent.

I assume that when you ask "Relationship between housekeeping and front office" you are asking "How can I have a relationship if the person I love works in an office, but I am a housekeeper?" (Or vica verca) So that is the question I am going to answer. Well, if you really want to have a relationship with this person from the office, (or housekeeper) you must be sure to make time to be together, outside of the home and/or office. Set aside evenings for dinner dates. Set aside weekends to go to the zoo or park together. Set aside any time at all...just so you and that special person can get together and see each other, and talk over things together. Sound good? I hope I helped! :) -HR

Both are evergreen softwoods and have needles and bear cones.

both lay eggs in the water and their larvae are hatch in the water too

A living organism is an organism whose parts are still functioning, a dead organism is an organism whose parts have ceased to function. All the materials are still there (unless something has been removed), it is simply the organization of said parts that has changed.

Muppets are puppet characters created by Jim Henson. Puppets are not Henson creations.
Muppet is a trade name- employed by originally Jim Henson. My guess it derives from Moppet- a child ( mainly British) also implies a sort of hippie-like bangs hair cut- Mop Top, perhaps). There are various types of puppets and marionettes, some operated from within almost like the manned robots which were at one time a science fiction plot device- not too common now. Other TV oriented puppeteers were and are Bill Baird ( deceased) and Gerry Anderson who founded Supermationation- the process. the latter process is sometimes inaccurately called ( 3 D cartoon) but does have depth!) Almost all of Anderson"s supermarionation work would be considered Science-fiction. There was another Sci-Fi puppeteer but the name escapes me- he was active in the model rocket field in the sixties- but I cannot recall his name.

They simply pass through the cell membrane of the targeted cell. This is possible because steroid hormones are fat-soluble, and the fluid mosaic ( phospholipid bilayer ) prevents fat-insoluble molecules from diffusing into the cell.

they both had a goal to reach, they wanted to overpower each other equally, and both had government. Each had armies, workers and people who supported them in different ways

some similarities is that they both did not respect the First Nations and they both were going to the New World

well cant you tell? all the presidents usually say what they are planning to accomplish. that's one. another is that they are saying that they cant do everything they need your help so the can get the job done. finally, they are probably upliftng and powerful speeches so you know that they care or something.

A cyclones is virtually any large scale low pressure system with a closed circulation. A hurricane is a kind of cyclone, specifically a strong tropical cyclone, described as having the traits of a cyclone as well as organized convection, a warm core, and sustained winds of at least 74 mph.

Yes because the molecules in salt crystals are smaller, lighter, and more soluble which means it is capable of being dissolved.

The only similarities between societies in todays first world nations, and the first Neolithic villages is that both societies were composed of people, and some of those people farmed.

They invented cement, the arch, and the dome.

Both giraffes and elephants and plant eaters and are hunted

a trebuchet is a type of catapult. it used a counter weight

For one thing, both of these berries are good for your health. They are both low in calories, have antioxidant properties (good for fighting the aging process), and both are good sources of several important vitamins, including Vitamin C. These berries are also important to women: There is reasearch that indicates eating three or more servings of blueberries and strawberries each week can help women reduce their risk of heart attacks, according to the Journal of the American Heart Association.

They're located on the head and designed to see things. Both species have the eyes connected by the optic nerve to the optic center of the brain where the things that these two animals see, are processed by the brain. The eyeball of both species can transmit the image through the pupil to appear upside down on the back of the retina, but the brain sensory cortex flips the image upside down so both species are able to see their world right-side up. But that's really where the similarities end. Cows can see better at night, but only see in blues and yellows in the day time. They make up for this lack of full-spectrum colour vision that most humans have by having 320 degree periphery vision. Humans, on the other hand, only have a 140- to 180-degree periphery vision. Cows also lack the ability to be able to have depth perception, unlike humans, since cows are a prey animal, not a predatory animal like humans are.

Complete metamorphosis is a type of metamorphosis characterized by four frantically different stages: egg, larva, pupa and adult. Gradual metamorphosis is a type of metamorphosis in which an egg hatches into a nymph that resembles an adult, and which has no distinctly different larval stage. They are alike because they both turn into the same thing at the end, an adult. Even though gradual metamorphosis has no larval stage, or it is different, they both turn into an adult.

You can use either one to create fairly simple documents, spreadsheets, forms, drawings and presentations.

If you require more robust and complex features, you may need Microsoft Office.

Fossils that show intermediate characteristics are generally called transitional fossils. Transitional fossils are fossils that have characteristics that are intermediate in nature to organisms that existed both prior to it and after it. As such, transitional fossils are strongly suggestive of evolution. There are many examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Examples include large-scale transitions such as from reptiles to birds (like the controversial archaeopteryx) and from reptiles to mammals, as well as more detailed transitions, such as those among the many hominids or the development of horses. The fact that, despite the rarity of fossilization, we have a wealth of transitional fossil data and that the fossil data generally conforms to the phylogenetic tree is strongly supportive of the idea of evolution. Mention transitional fossils to a creationist and you will most likely get a dirty look. Transitional fossils are frequently misunderstood, and like macroevolution, creationists tend to redefine the term to suit their purposes. As explained above, transitional fossils are fossils that have characteristics that are intermediate between other organisms. If the transitional fossil can be dated to a time between the organisms it is an intermediate to, it is strongly suggestive of an evolutionary relationship between the organisms. Creationists will critique transitional fossils in a variety of ways. They might claim that a transitional fossil is not proof of an evolutionary relationship since you can't prove that it is, in fact, an ancestor of any later organism. They are right. We can't prove that. As has been explained, transitional fossils are suggestive of an evolutionary relationship - they are not proof of it. Once again we run into problems with creationists looking for proof when science deals rather with supporting evidence. Without actually going back in time and watching the birth/hatching/etc. of each successive organism in an evolutionary chain, we can not "prove" that an evolutionary relationship exists. Even if you accept evolution, you can't be sure some organism is actually an ancestor of existing species - it might be a side-branch on the evolutionary tree that died out. However, transitional fossils are just one more piece of evidence that is suggestive and supportive of evolution. Even if a transitional fossil is a side-branch, it still shows that creatures with intermediate characteristics existed, and this indicates the strong possibility that a similar organism could exist that is an ancestor of an existing species. When you consider that such transitionals fall into the phylogenetic tree well within the area you would expect them to, it is a nicely verified prediction of the general theory of evolution and further support for the theory. Creationists will also sometimes state that a transitional fossil is not, in fact, a transitional. For example, with archaeopteryx, some have claimed that it is not a transitional between reptiles and birds and instead assert that it is a true bird. Unfortunately, this is another example of a creationist lie or distortion. If you look at the evidence it is clear that archaeopteryx has characteristics in common with reptiles that modern birds do not posses. Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil. We can't say for sure it is actually an ancestor of modern birds, but as explained, that is not a significant issue. In general, creationist arguments that transitionals are not real transitionals are based on their ignorance of what a transitional fossil is or simply on outright distortions of fact. It is not that there isn't room for debate on the nature or categorization of various fossils, because there is always room for debate. However, creationist debates are almost never informed debate and as such do not accomplish much. Finally, creationists will sometimes belabor the fact that there are gaps in the fossil record. Even if we have a transitional fossil between two groups of organisms that is suggestive of an evolutionary relationship, creationists will demand intermediaries between the intermediaries. And, if those are found, creationists will want intermediaries between the new organisms. It's a no-win situation. Since creationists try to put forth the strawman that you need "absolute proof" of an evolutionary relationship to accept it, they insist that if we do not have a record of every single organism in the chain we can't say some organism is an ancestor of another. This is a useless and spurious criticism. I have already shown how we cannot say for certain that any particular fossilized organism was definitively in the evolutionary history of any other organism. But that doesn't matter. The fossil record is still extraodinarily suggestive of evolution in general, and specific fossils are suggestive of evolutionary relationships between specific organisms. We can make very well informed, provisional conclusions (this is science) as to the evolutionary history of many organisms. And these conclusions are supported by the evidence; in many cases by both fossil and nonfossil evidence

a family that consists of only a mother, a father, and their children