Home
Class 12
BIOLOGY
Mention two inherent characteristics of ...

Mention two inherent characteristics of Amoeba and yeast that enable them to reproduce asexually

Text Solution

AI Generated Solution

**Step-by-Step Text Solution:** 1. **Understanding Asexual Reproduction**: Asexual reproduction is a mode of reproduction that does not involve the fusion of gametes. It is a simpler and more convenient way for organisms to reproduce. 2. **Identifying Organisms**: The organisms in question are Amoeba and Yeast. Amoeba belongs to the phylum Protista, while Yeast belongs to the phylum Fungi. 3. **Characteristic 1 - Unicellularity**: Both Amoeba and Yeast are unicellular organisms. Being unicellular means that they consist of a single cell, which simplifies the process of reproduction. This characteristic allows them to reproduce asexually through processes such as binary fission in Amoeba and budding in Yeast. ...
Doubtnut Promotions Banner Mobile Dark
|

Topper's Solved these Questions

  • REPRODUCTION IN ORGANISMS

    NCERT EXEMPLAR ENGLISH|Exercise Short Answer Type Questions|11 Videos

  • REPRODUCTION IN ORGANISMS

    NCERT EXEMPLAR ENGLISH|Exercise Long Answer Type Questions|5 Videos

  • REPRODUCTION IN ORGANISMS

    NCERT EXEMPLAR ENGLISH|Exercise Long Answer Type Questions|5 Videos

  • PRINCIPLE OF INHERITANCE AND VARIATIONS

    NCERT EXEMPLAR ENGLISH|Exercise LONG ANSWER TYPE QUESTIONS|5 Videos

  • REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH

    NCERT EXEMPLAR ENGLISH|Exercise LONG ANSWER TYPE QUESTIONS|5 Videos

Similar Questions

Explore conceptually related problems

Mention two main characteristics of Tropical Rain Forests.

Mention two characteristics of the Indian monsoon

Knowledge Check

  • The most important problem posed by the existence of different interests, that is to say different mental models and paradigms about and within organizations, is how to tackle their (potential) incompatibility. In order to manage the cognitive and normative differences and preferences as part of organizational practice, knowledge management and thus management education will have to detach themselves from a functionalist management ideology, and the positivistic idea of knowledge and rationality which is associated with it. Such concepts as deutero leaning, n-th order changes, and innovation instead of improvements) do not fit into the latter approach. Functionalism has a marked preference for unity above diversity, for harmony above conflict, for (functional) integration, and it chooses order above the potential chaos of continuous change. Incompatibility or incommensurability are then seen as a grave threat to vested interests. Functionalists in particular react too emotionally and with disgust at the idea of (apparent) unreconcilable differences which adhere to incommensurability. If, however, knowledge management and therefore also management education wish to be able to pride themselves on the fact that they aspire to continuous innovation and learning in organizations, then the management of irreconcilability and pluriformity will be an unavoidable and indispensable prerequisite for its success. Postmodernism belies all grand narratives like those of positivism and even Habermas's theory of rationality, that try to force people into the mold of a specific way of thinking and acting. Postmodernism explains this tendency of grand theoretical system by positing two central characteristic of human reason : first, there is the fundamental and inalienable freedom or reason to conceptualize 'the world' in different ways, while second, each of these conceptualizations has a built-in and irreducible claim to universality. Management of incommensurability and heterogeneity in organizations expressly demands a postmodern epistemological perspective. Such concepts as incommensurability and internal differences have a prominent place in postmodernism. As is evident from the above quotation, postmodernism believes all great narratives on the levels of both epistemology and social philosophy. Positivism and even Habermas's theory of rationality, which under the guise of universality attempted to force people into a certain way of thinking and acting, as history has so adequately demonstrated, do not shrink from a totalitarian approach, Postmodernism shows that the incompatibility of grand theoretical systems is to be traced to two central features of human reason: first, the fundamental freedom of thought with which to view the world in one's own and therefore different way, and second, the inbuilt claim to universality, i.e., that one considers one's own point of view to be the best. It is for this reason that in practice it is not enough to minimalize the differences between alternative perspectives (which could lead to a kind of pluralistic indifference), neither would it do to resolve the conflicts between them in a forcible manner (this would lead only to dogmatism). Managing differences will therefore be a challenge for knowledge management to find which leading element would be helpful in steering the ship of organization past the rocks of totalitarian rule and then around the cliffs of indifference. For each word given below choose the correct meaning (as used in the passage) from the options provided: irreconcilability

    A
    dissimilarity
    B
    friendly
    C
    appeasable
    D
    incompatible

  • The most important problem posed by the existence of different interests, that is to say different mental models and paradigms about and within organizations, is how to tackle their (potential) incompatibility. In order to manage the cognitive and normative differences and preferences as part of organizational practice, knowledge management and thus management education will have to detach themselves from a functionalist management ideology, and the positivistic idea of knowledge and rationality which is associated with it. Such concepts as deutero leaning, n-th order changes, and innovation instead of improvements) do not fit into the latter approach. Functionalism has a marked preference for unity above diversity, for harmony above conflict, for (functional) integration, and it chooses order above the potential chaos of continuous change. Incompatibility or incommensurability are then seen as a grave threat to vested interests. Functionalists in particular react too emotionally and with disgust at the idea of (apparent) unreconcilable differences which adhere to incommensurability. If, however, knowledge management and therefore also management education wish to be able to pride themselves on the fact that they aspire to continuous innovation and learning in organizations, then the management of irreconcilability and pluriformity will be an unavoidable and indispensable prerequisite for its success. Postmodernism belies all grand narratives like those of positivism and even Habermas's theory of rationality, that try to force people into the mold of a specific way of thinking and acting. Postmodernism explains this tendency of grand theoretical system by positing two central characteristic of human reason : first, there is the fundamental and inalienable freedom or reason to conceptualize 'the world' in different ways, while second, each of these conceptualizations has a built-in and irreducible claim to universality. Management of incommensurability and heterogeneity in organizations expressly demands a postmodern epistemological perspective. Such concepts as incommensurability and internal differences have a prominent place in postmodernism. As is evident from the above quotation, postmodernism believes all great narratives on the levels of both epistemology and social philosophy. Positivism and even Habermas's theory of rationality, which under the guise of universality attempted to force people into a certain way of thinking and acting, as history has so adequately demonstrated, do not shrink from a totalitarian approach, Postmodernism shows that the incompatibility of grand theoretical systems is to be traced to two central features of human reason: first, the fundamental freedom of thought with which to view the world in one's own and therefore different way, and second, the inbuilt claim to universality, i.e., that one considers one's own point of view to be the best. It is for this reason that in practice it is not enough to minimalize the differences between alternative perspectives (which could lead to a kind of pluralistic indifference), neither would it do to resolve the conflicts between them in a forcible manner (this would lead only to dogmatism). Managing differences will therefore be a challenge for knowledge management to find which leading element would be helpful in steering the ship of organization past the rocks of totalitarian rule and then around the cliffs of indifference. For each word given below choose the correct meaning (as used in the passage) from the options provided: pluriformity

    A
    similarity
    B
    diversity
    C
    uniformity
    D
    regularity

  • The most important problem posed by the existence of different interests, that is to say different mental models and paradigms about and within organizations, is how to tackle their (potential) incompatibility. In order to manage the cognitive and normative differences and preferences as part of organizational practice, knowledge management and thus management education will have to detach themselves from a functionalist management ideology, and the positivistic idea of knowledge and rationality which is associated with it. Such concepts as deutero leaning, n-th order changes, and innovation instead of improvements) do not fit into the latter approach. Functionalism has a marked preference for unity above diversity, for harmony above conflict, for (functional) integration, and it chooses order above the potential chaos of continuous change. Incompatibility or incommensurability are then seen as a grave threat to vested interests. Functionalists in particular react too emotionally and with disgust at the idea of (apparent) unreconcilable differences which adhere to incommensurability. If, however, knowledge management and therefore also management education wish to be able to pride themselves on the fact that they aspire to continuous innovation and learning in organizations, then the management of irreconcilability and pluriformity will be an unavoidable and indispensable prerequisite for its success. Postmodernism belies all grand narratives like those of positivism and even Habermas's theory of rationality, that try to force people into the mold of a specific way of thinking and acting. Postmodernism explains this tendency of grand theoretical system by positing two central characteristic of human reason : first, there is the fundamental and inalienable freedom or reason to conceptualize 'the world' in different ways, while second, each of these conceptualizations has a built-in and irreducible claim to universality. Management of incommensurability and heterogeneity in organizations expressly demands a postmodern epistemological perspective. Such concepts as incommensurability and internal differences have a prominent place in postmodernism. As is evident from the above quotation, postmodernism believes all great narratives on the levels of both epistemology and social philosophy. Positivism and even Habermas's theory of rationality, which under the guise of universality attempted to force people into a certain way of thinking and acting, as history has so adequately demonstrated, do not shrink from a totalitarian approach, Postmodernism shows that the incompatibility of grand theoretical systems is to be traced to two central features of human reason: first, the fundamental freedom of thought with which to view the world in one's own and therefore different way, and second, the inbuilt claim to universality, i.e., that one considers one's own point of view to be the best. It is for this reason that in practice it is not enough to minimalize the differences between alternative perspectives (which could lead to a kind of pluralistic indifference), neither would it do to resolve the conflicts between them in a forcible manner (this would lead only to dogmatism). Managing differences will therefore be a challenge for knowledge management to find which leading element would be helpful in steering the ship of organization past the rocks of totalitarian rule and then around the cliffs of indifference. For each word given below choose the correct meaning (as used in the passage) from the options provided: inalienable

    A
    impermanent
    B
    changeable
    C
    unchallengeable
    D
    irreligious

    • Similar Questions

    Explore conceptually related problems

    a) Explain Darwinian theory of evolution with the help of one suitable example. State the two key concepts of the theory. b) Mention any three characteristics of Neanderthal man that lived in near east and central Asia.

    The most important problem posed by the existence of different interests, that is to say different mental models and paradigms about and within organizations, is how to tackle their (potential) incompatibility. In order to manage the cognitive and normative differences and preferences as part of organizational practice, knowledge management and thus management education will have to detach themselves from a functionalist management ideology, and the positivistic idea of knowledge and rationality which is associated with it. Such concepts as deutero leaning, n-th order changes, and innovation instead of improvements) do not fit into the latter approach. Functionalism has a marked preference for unity above diversity, for harmony above conflict, for (functional) integration, and it chooses order above the potential chaos of continuous change. Incompatibility or incommensurability are then seen as a grave threat to vested interests. Functionalists in particular react too emotionally and with disgust at the idea of (apparent) unreconcilable differences which adhere to incommensurability. If, however, knowledge management and therefore also management education wish to be able to pride themselves on the fact that they aspire to continuous innovation and learning in organizations, then the management of irreconcilability and pluriformity will be an unavoidable and indispensable prerequisite for its success. Postmodernism belies all grand narratives like those of positivism and even Habermas's theory of rationality, that try to force people into the mold of a specific way of thinking and acting. Postmodernism explains this tendency of grand theoretical system by positing two central characteristic of human reason : first, there is the fundamental and inalienable freedom or reason to conceptualize 'the world' in different ways, while second, each of these conceptualizations has a built-in and irreducible claim to universality. Management of incommensurability and heterogeneity in organizations expressly demands a postmodern epistemological perspective. Such concepts as incommensurability and internal differences have a prominent place in postmodernism. As is evident from the above quotation, postmodernism believes all great narratives on the levels of both epistemology and social philosophy. Positivism and even Habermas's theory of rationality, which under the guise of universality attempted to force people into a certain way of thinking and acting, as history has so adequately demonstrated, do not shrink from a totalitarian approach, Postmodernism shows that the incompatibility of grand theoretical systems is to be traced to two central features of human reason: first, the fundamental freedom of thought with which to view the world in one's own and therefore different way, and second, the inbuilt claim to universality, i.e., that one considers one's own point of view to be the best. It is for this reason that in practice it is not enough to minimalize the differences between alternative perspectives (which could lead to a kind of pluralistic indifference), neither would it do to resolve the conflicts between them in a forcible manner (this would lead only to dogmatism). Managing differences will therefore be a challenge for knowledge management to find which leading element would be helpful in steering the ship of organization past the rocks of totalitarian rule and then around the cliffs of indifference. All of the following are true, with respect to the passage, except that:

    The most important problem posed by the existence of different interests, that is to say different mental models and paradigms about and within organizations, is how to tackle their (potential) incompatibility. In order to manage the cognitive and normative differences and preferences as part of organizational practice, knowledge management and thus management education will have to detach themselves from a functionalist management ideology, and the positivistic idea of knowledge and rationality which is associated with it. Such concepts as deutero leaning, n-th order changes, and innovation instead of improvements) do not fit into the latter approach. Functionalism has a marked preference for unity above diversity, for harmony above conflict, for (functional) integration, and it chooses order above the potential chaos of continuous change. Incompatibility or incommensurability are then seen as a grave threat to vested interests. Functionalists in particular react too emotionally and with disgust at the idea of (apparent) unreconcilable differences which adhere to incommensurability. If, however, knowledge management and therefore also management education wish to be able to pride themselves on the fact that they aspire to continuous innovation and learning in organizations, then the management of irreconcilability and pluriformity will be an unavoidable and indispensable prerequisite for its success. Postmodernism belies all grand narratives like those of positivism and even Habermas's theory of rationality, that try to force people into the mold of a specific way of thinking and acting. Postmodernism explains this tendency of grand theoretical system by positing two central characteristic of human reason : first, there is the fundamental and inalienable freedom or reason to conceptualize 'the world' in different ways, while second, each of these conceptualizations has a built-in and irreducible claim to universality. Management of incommensurability and heterogeneity in organizations expressly demands a postmodern epistemological perspective. Such concepts as incommensurability and internal differences have a prominent place in postmodernism. As is evident from the above quotation, postmodernism believes all great narratives on the levels of both epistemology and social philosophy. Positivism and even Habermas's theory of rationality, which under the guise of universality attempted to force people into a certain way of thinking and acting, as history has so adequately demonstrated, do not shrink from a totalitarian approach, Postmodernism shows that the incompatibility of grand theoretical systems is to be traced to two central features of human reason: first, the fundamental freedom of thought with which to view the world in one's own and therefore different way, and second, the inbuilt claim to universality, i.e., that one considers one's own point of view to be the best. It is for this reason that in practice it is not enough to minimalize the differences between alternative perspectives (which could lead to a kind of pluralistic indifference), neither would it do to resolve the conflicts between them in a forcible manner (this would lead only to dogmatism). Managing differences will therefore be a challenge for knowledge management to find which leading element would be helpful in steering the ship of organization past the rocks of totalitarian rule and then around the cliffs of indifference. Which of the following best denotes the characteristic features of functionalism, as brought out in the passage ?

    The most important problem posed by the existence of different interests, that is to say different mental models and paradigms about and within organizations, is how to tackle their (potential) incompatibility. In order to manage the cognitive and normative differences and preferences as part of organizational practice, knowledge management and thus management education will have to detach themselves from a functionalist management ideology, and the positivistic idea of knowledge and rationality which is associated with it. Such concepts as deutero leaning, n-th order changes, and innovation instead of improvements) do not fit into the latter approach. Functionalism has a marked preference for unity above diversity, for harmony above conflict, for (functional) integration, and it chooses order above the potential chaos of continuous change. Incompatibility or incommensurability are then seen as a grave threat to vested interests. Functionalists in particular react too emotionally and with disgust at the idea of (apparent) unreconcilable differences which adhere to incommensurability. If, however, knowledge management and therefore also management education wish to be able to pride themselves on the fact that they aspire to continuous innovation and learning in organizations, then the management of irreconcilability and pluriformity will be an unavoidable and indispensable prerequisite for its success. Postmodernism belies all grand narratives like those of positivism and even Habermas's theory of rationality, that try to force people into the mold of a specific way of thinking and acting. Postmodernism explains this tendency of grand theoretical system by positing two central characteristic of human reason : first, there is the fundamental and inalienable freedom or reason to conceptualize 'the world' in different ways, while second, each of these conceptualizations has a built-in and irreducible claim to universality. Management of incommensurability and heterogeneity in organizations expressly demands a postmodern epistemological perspective. Such concepts as incommensurability and internal differences have a prominent place in postmodernism. As is evident from the above quotation, postmodernism believes all great narratives on the levels of both epistemology and social philosophy. Positivism and even Habermas's theory of rationality, which under the guise of universality attempted to force people into a certain way of thinking and acting, as history has so adequately demonstrated, do not shrink from a totalitarian approach, Postmodernism shows that the incompatibility of grand theoretical systems is to be traced to two central features of human reason: first, the fundamental freedom of thought with which to view the world in one's own and therefore different way, and second, the inbuilt claim to universality, i.e., that one considers one's own point of view to be the best. It is for this reason that in practice it is not enough to minimalize the differences between alternative perspectives (which could lead to a kind of pluralistic indifference), neither would it do to resolve the conflicts between them in a forcible manner (this would lead only to dogmatism). Managing differences will therefore be a challenge for knowledge management to find which leading element would be helpful in steering the ship of organization past the rocks of totalitarian rule and then around the cliffs of indifference. According to the passage, post modernism:

    The most important problem posed by the existence of different interests, that is to say different mental models and paradigms about and within organizations, is how to tackle their (potential) incompatibility. In order to manage the cognitive and normative differences and preferences as part of organizational practice, knowledge management and thus management education will have to detach themselves from a functionalist management ideology, and the positivistic idea of knowledge and rationality which is associated with it. Such concepts as deutero leaning, n-th order changes, and innovation instead of improvements) do not fit into the latter approach. Functionalism has a marked preference for unity above diversity, for harmony above conflict, for (functional) integration, and it chooses order above the potential chaos of continuous change. Incompatibility or incommensurability are then seen as a grave threat to vested interests. Functionalists in particular react too emotionally and with disgust at the idea of (apparent) unreconcilable differences which adhere to incommensurability. If, however, knowledge management and therefore also management education wish to be able to pride themselves on the fact that they aspire to continuous innovation and learning in organizations, then the management of irreconcilability and pluriformity will be an unavoidable and indispensable prerequisite for its success. Postmodernism belies all grand narratives like those of positivism and even Habermas's theory of rationality, that try to force people into the mold of a specific way of thinking and acting. Postmodernism explains this tendency of grand theoretical system by positing two central characteristic of human reason : first, there is the fundamental and inalienable freedom or reason to conceptualize 'the world' in different ways, while second, each of these conceptualizations has a built-in and irreducible claim to universality. Management of incommensurability and heterogeneity in organizations expressly demands a postmodern epistemological perspective. Such concepts as incommensurability and internal differences have a prominent place in postmodernism. As is evident from the above quotation, postmodernism believes all great narratives on the levels of both epistemology and social philosophy. Positivism and even Habermas's theory of rationality, which under the guise of universality attempted to force people into a certain way of thinking and acting, as history has so adequately demonstrated, do not shrink from a totalitarian approach, Postmodernism shows that the incompatibility of grand theoretical systems is to be traced to two central features of human reason: first, the fundamental freedom of thought with which to view the world in one's own and therefore different way, and second, the inbuilt claim to universality, i.e., that one considers one's own point of view to be the best. It is for this reason that in practice it is not enough to minimalize the differences between alternative perspectives (which could lead to a kind of pluralistic indifference), neither would it do to resolve the conflicts between them in a forcible manner (this would lead only to dogmatism). Managing differences will therefore be a challenge for knowledge management to find which leading element would be helpful in steering the ship of organization past the rocks of totalitarian rule and then around the cliffs of indifference. As per the passage, knowledge management will find its challenge in:

    Home
    Profile