Try editing your question to add the substances so I can answer your question.
I think its D but im not sure this question is confusing.
Well, to be fair, this is a bit of a tough question because it's in question by some of the leading microbiologists right now.
But one argument for this is their ability to reproduce. Note that one of the leading arguments for something to be alive is that they are subject to evolution and hence natural selection: the statements for which argue that there has to be differentiation within a species (meaning there has to be different forms of each virus within a type of virus) and there has to be reproduction-- which is where the problem comes along (because viruses could only reproduce while in a host). So one argument that can be made that they are in-fact alive, is that they reproduce and is subject to evolution.
Do know however that this is HIGHLY controversial-- and if your teacher asks it, it's most likely not a right-or-wrong answer
If he does do it that way, maybe you could show off your brainy-bio knowledge by explaining to him why it shouldn't be so!
I believe it would be Mitochondria
Peacocks would not be in Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium
Explanation:
This can be justified by the mating patterns of the female peacocks. They do not choose their mates randomly but look out specifically for bright attractive plumage in their male partners and then select them.
Hardy-Weinberg's Equilibrium of evolution mechanism was based on facts like random mating, no natural selection, mutation, absence of gene flow, and infinite population size.
They stated that organisms mate randomly with each other without any specific or a particular preference in the phenotypes of their opposite mates
