Explanation:
The major blood vessels that are connected to the heart include the aorta, the superior vena cava, the inferior vena cava, the pulmonary artery (which takes oxygen-poor blood from the heart to the lungs, where it is oxygenated), the pulmonary veins (which bring oxygen-rich blood from the lungs to the heart) and the coronary arteries (which supply blood to the heart muscle).
<span>Enzymes cut introns out of an mRNA strand.</span>
The confusion about 'fruit' and 'vegetable' arises because of the differences in usage between scientists and cooks. Scientifically speaking, a tomato is definitely a fruit. True fruits are developed from the ovary in the base of the flower, and contain the seeds of the plant (though cultivated forms may be seedless). Blueberries, raspberries, and oranges are true fruits, and so are many kinds of nut. Some plants have a soft part which supports the seeds and is also called a 'fruit', though it is not developed from the ovary: the strawberry is an example.
As far as cooking is concerned, some things which are strictly fruits, such as tomatoes orbean pods, may be called 'vegetables' because they are used in savoury rather than sweet cooking. The term 'vegetable' is more generally used of other edible parts of plants, such as cabbage leaves, celery stalks, and potato tubers, which are not strictly the fruit of the plant from which they come. Occasionally the term 'fruit' may be used to refer to a part of a plant which is not a fruit, but which is used in sweet cooking: rhubarb, for example.
So, the answer to the question is that a tomato is technically the fruit of the tomato plant, but it's used as a vegetable in cooking.
Hope this helps :)
<u>Evolution is sometimes a controversial:</u>
Evolution is the most scientific explanation about how the life forms of earth originated and turned into the form that we see today.
I don’t think there should be a controversy because there is no other explanation that proves to be more logical than the theory of evolution. Evolution is a theory that has several supporting proofs and the theory itself was formed after several years of detailed study and observation.
I don’t think alternatives to evolution should be taught at schools. Alternative theories to evolution are based on various religious beliefs which lack a scientific basis.
Schools should be a place that enables students to do productive scientific thinking and teaching alternatives to evolution wouldn’t be a good idea.
