0
The case of Mesosaurus does not by itself prove the theory of continental drift, but it provides significant evidence supporting it. Mesosaurus was a freshwater reptile found in both South America and Africa, suggesting these continents were once joined. The existence of similar fossils on widely separated landmasses is difficult to explain without considering continental movement. However, additional evidence from geology, paleomagnetism, and other fossil types further supports the theory.
What else can I help you with?
Does the case by itself prove the mesosaurus theory why or why not?
The case of Mesosaurus does not, by itself, prove the theory of continental drift, as it requires additional evidence to establish a comprehensive explanation. While Mesosaurus fossils found in both South America and Africa suggest past connectivity between these continents, they alone cannot confirm the theory without supporting geological and paleontological data. The alignment of other fossil records, geological formations, and the distribution of similar species across continents collectively strengthen the argument for continental drift. Thus, while Mesosaurus contributes to the evidence, it is not definitive proof on its own.
Does the case of mesosaurus by itself the theory why or why not?
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.
Can a zombie die of starvation?
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.
This man grabbed my dog at the dog park and my dog bit him so he tackled my dog and stood on his neck and the man went to the hospital What is going to happen?
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.
Evolution and miracles are they opposite?
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.
Does the case by itself prove the mesosaurus theory why or why not?
The case of Mesosaurus does not, by itself, prove the theory of continental drift, as it requires additional evidence to establish a comprehensive explanation. While Mesosaurus fossils found in both South America and Africa suggest past connectivity between these continents, they alone cannot confirm the theory without supporting geological and paleontological data. The alignment of other fossil records, geological formations, and the distribution of similar species across continents collectively strengthen the argument for continental drift. Thus, while Mesosaurus contributes to the evidence, it is not definitive proof on its own.
Does the case of mesosaurus support wegeners theory of continental drift?
yes it does.
Does the case of mesosaurus by itself the theory why or why not?
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.
Does the case by itself prove the theory explain why or why or why not?
A case by itself does not prove a theory because it typically provides only a single instance or example, which may not be representative of broader patterns or principles. While a case can support a theory by illustrating its applicability, multiple cases and consistent findings are necessary to establish robust evidence. Additionally, alternative explanations and variables must be considered to validate the theory comprehensively. Thus, a single case is insufficient for definitive proof.
Does the case by itself prove the theorywhy or why not?
I am sorry but we can't answer because we don't know the case you are asking about.
Does the continental drift theory prove wegeners case?
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.
Is it more difficult to prove guilt or responsibility in a criminal case than in a civil case?
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.
Does the case of mesosaurus support Wegener's theory of continental drift why or why not?
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.
What can evidence provide?
Evidence can prove, or disprove, the case against you.
Can i be positive that my attorney will prove police corruption in my case?
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.
What does ''theory'' mean?
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.
What is the key to a successful rebuttal in a disparate treatment case?
to prove discrimination
