yes conjoined isn't a separate type of twins. it can actually only happen when the twins are identical (comming from a single fertilized egg) but don't completely separate from each other. So, technically conjoined twins are identical twins.
I didn't know that fraternal is the normal English term. I tried two-egg, which is a Dutch term, I think that would be comprehensible to English speakers, maybe it should be accepted.
I say that sharks do not eat people. They sometimes kill someone by mistake, but will never hunt people on purpose like some big cats can do. I have to say that I find movies like Jaws disgusting, because they spread myths about sharks, and contribute to the fear and hate that they don't deserve. Just some stats: sharks killed about a hundred people between 1990 and 2005 while we kill several millions of them every year...
I agree with you in the sense that Sharks are really badly portrayed by the media and the arts. They are perfectly designed and amazing animals. But I wouldn't take the term "Man eating" as an animal that literally eats humans. More a colloquial term for an animal capable of killing a man with it's mouth?
I don't think any sharks actually hunt humans. I think they are going about their usual way of life and encounter humans in their natural territory and attack. It is really the humans that set out knowingly to enter the sharks natural habitat i.e. the sea.
@malbaby we, humans, have a tendency to do that move into an animal territory then blame it for the inconvenience it might cause us.. raiding our trash, knawing our cables, looking for shelter, making noise, trying to have dinner, defendending their babies. Blocking our chimney or tv signal.
Basicly we blame they for wanting to eat, stay warm, procreate and defend themselves. Going about (as much as is still possibly with us taking their space) their daily bussiness.
Watson and Crick were certainly not discoverers of DNA. Rather, they identified its double-helical structure, but they and others were specifically working to come up with the structure of the already-known molecule, discovered by Friedrich Miescher.
yeap, certainly not true. Not to mention, giving sole credit of the discovery of the double helix structure would still be unfair considering the work of Chargaff, Franklin, and Wilkins (just to name a few) played a huge role in that understanding.
Structure is better but Franklin deserves credit, and Wilkins less so. It was her photos that revealed the structure. Three of them got the Nobel prize - but Franklin had died by then.
It definitely should not be a "group of two" question. Maurice Wilkins was awarded a nobel prize for his contribution to the discovery, and he and Rosalind Franklin are widely thought to have deduced the structure first, and published it in the same year as Crick and Watson.
For a long while I couldnt think of the answer ( and wasnt sure I would have heard of the englsh answer) In my language it is "one-egged' "two-egged" somehow maternal came up tried it, didnt do anything, later identical popped up. But never got back to paternal, because I thought maternal just rondomly came in to my mind and had no connection to anything.
I think the question should be "Who received Nobel Prizes for Physiology and Medicine for their work on DNA"....... Rosalind Franklin did great work before them both. see ..... https://www.rosalindfranklinsociety.org/about/rosalind-franklin
Even that question should include Maurice Wilkins. More realistically, the question should be removed because it's inaccurate to call it a group of two.
For the two types of tree, 'broadleaf' and coniferous' or 'monocotyledon' and 'dicotyledon' would be better answers than 'deciduous' and 'evergreen', as they are more fundamental biological divisions.
So many issues here. the Watson and Crick question should just be gone, really not right in a 'groups of two' quiz, for all the reasons several others have highlighted.
'Evergreen' for the trees is just wrong. It should be 'coniferous' (if dicotyledon and monocotyledon are the two categories intended) as there are several conifers (monocots) that are not evergreen, Larches, certain Cypresses for example.
I'd be willing to bet the majority of people know Marie Curie. Maybe fewer know she's Polish, but I still suspect many know that too. Despite being a French citizen, she remained quite proud of her roots, and even made sure her children spoke Polish. Polonium is thus named after her birth country.
Basicly we blame they for wanting to eat, stay warm, procreate and defend themselves. Going about (as much as is still possibly with us taking their space) their daily bussiness.
*sees the answer*
Arrrrgh!
'Evergreen' for the trees is just wrong. It should be 'coniferous' (if dicotyledon and monocotyledon are the two categories intended) as there are several conifers (monocots) that are not evergreen, Larches, certain Cypresses for example.