The case of Mesosaurus does support the theory of continental drift, particularly in the context of plate tectonics. This freshwater reptile's fossils were found in both South America and Africa, which are now separated by the Atlantic Ocean. The presence of such a species in these two distant locations suggests that the continents were once joined, allowing Mesosaurus to inhabit both regions. Thus, it provides evidence against the idea that these continents have always been in their current positions.
Yes! Everything that moves needs food to sustain itself. Or in this case... BLOOD! Zombies are fictional characters that are true in movies, legends, and stories. In the movies, legends, and books, they can die of starvation.
You should contact the authorities and report the incident. They will investigate the situation and determine if any charges need to be pressed against the man for harming your dog. Make sure to gather any witnesses or evidence to support your case.
This is a touchy subject. While many believe that belief in God and belief in evolution conflict with each other, that is not necessarily the case. For one, evolution is a proven fact of existence. Everything evolves, or changes, over time. The questionable part is the explanation of that phenomenon. The most common and widely accepted explanation is the theory of natural selection, which most people simply see as evolutionary theory. This well-tested theory does NOT rule-out the existence of God. Many believe that God created the world, and that natural selection and evolution simply give greater insight into how it all may have happened.
A case study is when research is done a specific project. Case work is the total amount of work being done on all cases.
yes it does.
The case of Mesosaurus does support the theory of continental drift, particularly in the context of plate tectonics. This freshwater reptile's fossils were found in both South America and Africa, which are now separated by the Atlantic Ocean. The presence of such a species in these two distant locations suggests that the continents were once joined, allowing Mesosaurus to inhabit both regions. Thus, it provides evidence against the idea that these continents have always been in their current positions.
I am sorry but we can't answer because we don't know the case you are asking about.
Yes, the case of the Mesosaurus does support Wegener's theory of continental drift because Mesosaurus however were-- as stated very well, A non-pelagic freshwater species from the Permian limited to a narrow range in the south east tip of South America and South Africa. In my opinion we cannot totally rule out "Accidental" ocean going land and freshwater as examples do exist (e.g Central and South American land tortoises to and from Galapagos) but the gravity of the drift theory favors conjoint land else narrow very narrow seaways for which rafting or limited range free swimming could be a mechanism of spreading breeding populations. My point being we can not exclude the possibility of animals being able to cross minor bodies of water because we have more modern examples for which swimming or rafting on debris were plausible. Egrets are a flying example of how species may be distributed across large bodies of water and so aren't perfect evidence. Common egrets were blown over from Africa to South America late in the 1800s in a massive storm system. Through replication and migrations they have reached the Piedmont of the Carolinas , central Alabama-Georgia and western Tennessee.
A criminal case is harder to prove, as the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt." A civil case only has to be by a "preponderance of the evidence" which is anything over half.
Evidence can prove, or disprove, the case against you.
Yes, the case of the Mesosaurus does support Wegener's theory of continental drift because Mesosaurus however were-- as stated very well, A non-pelagic freshwater species from the Permian limited to a narrow range in the south east tip of South America and South Africa. In my opinion we cannot totally rule out "Accidental" ocean going land and freshwater as examples do exist (e.g Central and South American land tortoises to and from Galapagos) but the gravity of the drift theory favors conjoint land else narrow very narrow seaways for which rafting or limited range free swimming could be a mechanism of spreading breeding populations. My point being we can not exclude the possibility of animals being able to cross minor bodies of water because we have more modern examples for which swimming or rafting on debris were plausible. Egrets are a flying example of how species may be distributed across large bodies of water and so aren't perfect evidence. Common egrets were blown over from Africa to South America late in the 1800s in a massive storm system. Through replication and migrations they have reached the Piedmont of the Carolinas , central Alabama-Georgia and western Tennessee.
If the attorney can prove the officer's intent to violate your rights, or a statute, your case is likely to raise concerns: if nothing else. If the attorney cannot prove that the officer knowingly and intentionally violated a statute, you probably do not have a case. That being said, you can never be "positive" of anything in the justice system.
An idea/ postulation regarding an unsubstantiated observation or situation. In short a theory is like having a suspicion about something, but not enough evidence to say whether it is true or not. For example: If someone steals something from your cupboard, you may not have seen it happen, but you may well suspect someone of doing it; essentially this is a theory until such time as you have some facts or evidence to prove the case. You may have a number of theories, and not just one. The same thing happens in various fields of research, scientists may have a suspicion or theory about a particular occurrence/ event/ particle/ microbe/ planet etc. They base their theory on reasonable deduction as well as the evidence at hand. They may then devise experiments (if possible) to prove or disprove the theory.
to prove discrimination
They moved on to a new case.
No. You mean "a case in point" A case in point is an example that helps to prove your argument eg "The weather is unpredictable, last week's hurricanes were a case in point."