Quick academic help

Don't let the stress of school get you down! Have your essay written by a professional writer before the deadline arrives.

Calculate the price

Pages:

275 Words

$19,50

There isn't an appropriate age to start dating.

The first tree forests formed in the late Devonian, and bark is the great innovation that led to forming the Carboniferous’s vast coal deposits. Compared to modern trees, Carboniferous trees seemed to go overboard on bark, at least partly to discourage arthropods. Today’s trees generally contain at least four times as much wood as bark. Those early trees had about . trees dominated the Carboniferous rainforest and could grow 30 meters tall. Because it took more than a hundred million years for life to learn to break down lignin, that early lignin did not degrade via biological processes. The early Carboniferous was warm, even with a small ice cap at the South Pole, and Earth’s first rainforests appeared in the late Devonian and again proliferated in the Carboniferous. The Carboniferous lasted from about 360 mya to 300 mya and was the Golden Age of Amphibians, as the rainforest was largely global in extent and swamps abounded. Amphibians were the Carboniferous’s apex predators on land, and some reached crocodile size and acted like them.

The Counter Side of Example : My Argument: Introduction: What age is appropriate to start dating?

Women in their 50’s will often narrowly restrict their dating range because they have a fear of meeting and falling with an older man – and then having to deal with his health issues. Men certainly have a shorter average lifespan than women, but this doesn’t tell you anything about a particular guy. Is it wise for a woman of 55 to consider a relationship with a man who is 65 or 70?

Lots of people get their maturaty at a younger or older age.

In my oppinion, there isn't an appropriate age in which a person should or shouldn't start dating.

Earth had never before hosted anything like behaviorally modern humans. Nothing came close. They wielded fire and began using it for offensive purposes, to . They had sophisticated stone tools and weapons, they mastered language and could engage in group behaviors that no other land animal remotely accomplished. They probably had sophisticated projectile weapons, and if the , they may have also . One !Kung arrow can bring down a 200-kilogram antelope in less than a day. What kind of animal in the Western Hemisphere and Australia, that had never seen anything like a human before, and would have been the of the invaders, and the large ones all reproduced slowly, could have withstood that onslaught? None that I can think of. Neanderthals were ambush predators of megafauna that were wary of humans, and whatever projectile weapons they may have had, they would have been inferior to those that behaviorally modern humans left Africa with about 60-50 kya. Neanderthals still lived off of those animals, with suffered during hunts. That would have been nothing like what the invaders of the Western Hemisphere and Australia encountered. They could have walked right up to all of those animals with no conditioned fear of humans and stuck their spears into them, maybe not even needing to use projectile weapons, much less poisoned ones. That scenario has been called the , but it would not have seemed a rapid event to the invaders. It would have been a butcher shop’s version of the Garden of Eden. Farther than they could imagine, in every direction, were animals with no fear of humans that could be killed so easily that it may have literally become child’s play. One argument by human-agency skeptics is that continental animals were subject to predation and would have begun fleeing fast. That seems like a weak argument, and here is why.

The genetic testing that has been performed on humanity in the past generation has shown that the founder group’s pattern of migration was to continually spread out, and once the original settlement covered the continents, people did not move much at all, at least until Europe began conquering the world (and there were some ). There is little sign of warfare in those early days of migration, and the leading hypothesis is that people moved to the next valley rather than be close enough to fight each other. Any conflict would have been easily resolved by moving farther out, where more easily killed animals lived. Also, in those virgin continents, people need not have roamed far to obtain food. Today, an !Kung woman will carry her child more than 7,000 kilometers before the child can walk for himself/herself. If an !Kung woman bears twins, it is her duty to pick which child to murder, because she cannot afford to carry two. That demonstrates the limitations of today’s hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but in those halcyonic days of invading virgin continents (which had to be the Golden Age of the Hunter-Gatherer), those kinds of practices probably waned and bands grew fast. When they they split, and the new group moved to new lands where the animals, again, never saw people before. Unlike the case with humans, there would not have been a grapevine so that animals told their neighbors about the new super-predator. The first time that those megafauna saw humans was probably their last time. It is very likely, just as with all predators for all time, and as can be seen with historical hunting events such or , that those bands soon took to killing animals, harvesting the best parts, and moving on. To them it would not have been a “blitzkrieg,” but more like kids in candy stores. After a few thousand years of grabbing meat whenever the fancy took them, or perhaps less, those halcyonic days were over as the far coasts of Australia were reached and the easy meat was gone. When that land bridge formed to Tasmania about 43 kya, people crossed and were able to , until all the megafauna was gone on Tasmania. They also may have worked their way through the food chain, in which the first kills were the true mother lode. Nobody even deigned to raise a spear at anything less than a until they were gone. Then they started killing smaller prey, which eventually did wise up and were harder to kill, so humans had to work at it again and the brief golden age was over. The as they shaped the new continent to their liking, maybe recreating the savanna conditions that they left in Africa, may have also been used to flush out animals if they began to avoid humans.

I personally think there isn't a certain age to start dating.

Is there an appropriate age to start dating ?

The rise of couples who cohabitate prior to marriage has altered the way our society perceives marriage and relationships and led to a reformulation of the dating process.

Introduction and thesis
The counter side of the argument
My Argument
Conclusion Table of contents : Conclusion: A researcher says , " I personally believe that you should make the decision for your children based upon your own personal beliefs and an understanding of your teen's emotional and physical development." You should know that there is research that demonstrates that children ages 10-12 who begin steady dating often do more poorly in school and have more behavior problems.

There isn't really an appropriate age to start dating.
Order now
  • UNMATCHED QUALITY

    As soon as we have completed your work, it will be proofread and given a thorough scan for plagiarism.

  • STRICT PRIVACY

    Our clients' personal information is kept confidential, so rest assured that no one will find out about our cooperation.

  • COMPLETE ORIGINALITY

    We write everything from scratch. You'll be sure to receive a plagiarism-free paper every time you place an order.

  • ON-TIME DELIVERY

    We will complete your paper on time, giving you total peace of mind with every assignment you entrust us with.

  • FREE CORRECTIONS

    Want something changed in your paper? Request as many revisions as you want until you're completely satisfied with the outcome.

  • 24/7 SUPPORT

    We're always here to help you solve any possible issue. Feel free to give us a call or write a message in chat.

Order now

Online dating is typically taken advantage of in one of two ways.

When , there was real economic benefit from their activities, not simply accounting legerdemain, and their was more sustainable. Venetians and Genoese engaged in early instances of a similar process, but it began ascending in earnest as Europe conquered the world. The basic tenet of mercantilism was the acquisition of “treasure” by the mother nation via “trade.” The classic mercantile situation was forcing subjugated people to produce raw material for shipment to the imperial nation for processing. The finished goods would be shipped back to the subjugated people at an inflated price, as the imperial nation slowly milked the subject nation by unfair terms of exchange that they controlled (or sold such cheaply produced goods to other nations). In mercantilist practice, they did not usually dictate how the workforce was organized or how they worked. The intervention was at the market level, by interposing themselves into the process in which producers were enslaved and bled dry by unfair pricing for both raw goods and finished goods. The imperial power had both captive producers and markets for finished goods. Early colonial efforts were largely mercantilist in nature when they were not simply gold rushes.

Ah yes, the age-old ritual of dating…or is it.

it skims off the results of hard work that salmon performed to live long enough to return home to spawn. When established villages along mammoth migration routes, they were harvesting the energy flow of passing mammoths that pursued their own energy resources. In those instances, elites did not dictate how peasants should farm, nor did bears tell salmon how to live, nor did Gravettians help mammoths learn subsistence practices; they all intervened at an advantageous moment, usually near the end of the energy production process, to steal the fruit of somebody else’s hard work. Skimming rather than plundering is more sustainable. Elites learned this early on. Skim too much and the system collapses, but skim the right amount and skimming can continue almost indefinitely. However, no human civilization has truly been sustainable, so elites usually skimmed while they could. If they were fortunate and possessed sufficient foresight, they could abandon one collapsing system and skim from another.

Unreliability of Radiometric Dating and Old Age of the …

Agricultural output increased, England’s population rose, and those dispossessed peasants toiled in English mines and mills. A common misconception regarding the Industrial Revolution is that it was an urban phenomenon, but it really began in the countryside, where the energy was. England’s watermills, necessarily located along rural rivers and streams, powered the cotton-spinning machines tended by dispossessed peasants, which turned England into the world’s workshop well before 1800. England had nearly a century’s lead on its rivals, and was eventually supplanted atop the global imperial hierarchy by its descendent and rival, the USA. London played little role in early industrialization, similar to a parasite like Rome. The cotton spinning machine was the iconic technology of the early Industrial Revolution, but two events in the early 1700s had greater ultimate importance: using , and . The stage was thus set for machines that could be built and powered by hydrocarbon energy, which is still the foundation of today’s global industrial economy, more than three centuries later. With those events, the Industrial Revolution began.

Order now
  • You submit your order instructions

  • We assign an appropriate expert

  • The expert takes care of your task

  • We send it to you upon completion

Order now
  • 37 684

    Delivered orders

  • 763

    Professional writers

  • 311

    Writers online

  • 4.8/5

    Average quality score

Order now
  • Kim

    "I have always been impressed by the quick turnaround and your thoroughness. Easily the most professional essay writing service on the web."

  • Paul

    "Your assistance and the first class service is much appreciated. My essay reads so well and without your help I'm sure I would have been marked down again on grammar and syntax."

  • Ellen

    "Thanks again for your excellent work with my assignments. No doubts you're true experts at what you do and very approachable."

  • Joyce

    "Very professional, cheap and friendly service. Thanks for writing two important essays for me, I wouldn't have written it myself because of the tight deadline."

  • Albert

    "Thanks for your cautious eye, attention to detail and overall superb service. Thanks to you, now I am confident that I can submit my term paper on time."

  • Mary

    "Thank you for the GREAT work you have done. Just wanted to tell that I'm very happy with my essay and will get back with more assignments soon."

Ready to tackle your homework?

Place an order