Answer:
First, it's important to get clear on the meaning of Homeostasis.
In simple terms, it refers to the capacity of a living thing (plant or animal) to react or behave in such a way that enables it to continue to survive irrespective of changes in its immediate environment.
Explanation:
In humans, the body has a system which reacts to the external stimuli of temprature. When the weather is hot, the brain through a sequence of electrical and chemical signals tells the skin to open up the pore, then we experience venting of sweating which cools the body and regulates internal heat. This is an instance of homeostasis.
This does not mean that the plant or animal is completely immune to such external changes.
In the case of the tomato plant, the hair on the leaves and stem of the plant is an example of Homeostatic responses which have evolved over the years to discourage predators such as the hornworm caterpillar from defoliating the plant.
Cheers!
Answer:
D. guard cells.. this is answer i think..
Answer:
The celebrity of the defendant, the other major players, and the case itself had, and continues to have, society as a whole discussing domestic violence and the effectiveness of our laws that deal with this area of criminal law. Since the commission of the crimes in June of 1994, the Simpson' case brought to the forefront the issue of what role evidence of prior domestic violence should play in criminal prosecutions. In addition to the forensic evidence which the Los Angeles prosecutors relied upon to attempt to convict Mr. Simpson, the theory of the prosecution's case rested on the proposition that Mr. Simpson committed the murders against his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson (hereinafter Ms. Brown), and her friend, Ronald Goldman, because of jealousy, obsession, and the need to dominate Ms. Brown. The prosecution's case rested entirely upon circumstantial evidence, and as such, the prosecutors sought to introduce evidence of Mr. Simpson's past abusive conduct toward Ms. Brown to establish the identity of the perpetrator and his motives to commit the brutal crimes. The prosecution argued that the history of domestic violence and prior threats were probative evidence of Mr. Simpson's motive, intent, plan, and identity as the killer. According to Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti, the trial judge's ruling on the admissibility of this evidence was the "most critical ruling" that the Court would make in the case The prior conduct which the prosecution wanted to introduce on its direct case included acts of physical beatings upon Ms. Brown by Mr. Simpson, some of which were documented by photographs showing Ms. Brown's injuries. Other incidents included an episode in which Mr. Simpson had thrown Ms. Brown out of a moving car; a 1989 assault for which Ms. Brown had been hospitalized due to her injuries; Mr. Simpson's 1989 no contest plea to spousal abuse for which he was ordered to undergo counseling and pay a fine; letters of apology for the abuse written by Mr. Simpson to Ms. Brown; Mr. Simpson's repeated threats to kill Ms. Brown; a 1993 recording of a "911" telephone call made by Ms. Brown to the police, during which the voice of Mr. Simpson was heard making threats and shouting obscenities at Ms. Brown; evidence that Mr. Simpson was stalking Ms. Brown, and that shortly before her death, Ms. Brown had made contact with a battered women's shelter help-line; and many other instances of actual and threatened violence committed by Mr. Simpson against Ms. Brown dating back to 1977. In January 1995, Judge Lance Ito, who presided over the murder trial, ruled that much of the domestic violence history would be admissible on the prosecution's direct case, including the 1993 "911" tape-recorded telephone call by Ms. Brown. The evidence was admitted to provide the jury with an appreciation of the "nature and quality" of the relationship between Mr. Simpson anji Ms. Brown, and to aid in establishing motive, intent, plan, and identity of the killer.
