I didn't write the original comment, but what th heck. The one about the ocean depth is misleading, because you don't mention it's the average depth. And the one about phobias HAS to be wrong - there's just no way that would work. I wrote several comments under that one, including one replying to the person giving sources. That one annoys me to no end, it's just so wrong and so many people wrote their incorrect affirmations under it, too. You definitely misunderstood something there, and it would be easier to pinpoint if you'd given your sources.

So many of these were "off". 8, 13, 15, 16, 19, 21, 23, and 24 were trivia with little or no scientific merit. 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 lack either context or specificity and are either meaningless or lead to completely incorrect conclusions (lobsters and jellyfish cannot live forever, that is a gross over simplification; no "ocean" is eleven Eiffel Towers deep, though certain locations may be). But 7, the one about the phobias, is the most ridiculously out of context, unsupported, and unscientific "fact" of them all. It completely misrepresents the psychology of trauma and phobias, as well as the interaction between psychology and genetic traits. This is the kind of fake science that makes people dumber, not smarter, by giving them vague factoids ("did you know that hyenas are more closely related to cats than dogs?"}, without any kind of understanding of what related means, or what classification system is being used, or even that multiple systems exist.

Thanks a lot! That cleared up that one about phobias. Turns out your misunderstanding is pretty understandable, because it partly IS correct and you need some biological background to understand why it works in that case but is still unlikely for most phobias. The researchers in this case used smell - and smell is a unique sense in that the relationship between sense of smell and genes is a LOT more direct than for any other sense. For smelling you have thousands of receptors, most of which recognize a defined group of molecules, or even just one specific molecule. Each receptor is encoded by one gene. So if you have a strong experience with one specific smell, it's actually possible to "tag" the gene(s) for the receptor(s) for that smell via epigenetics. But it's extremely unlikely to work for experiences that aren't related to smell or taste - you don't have a defined set of genes that recognizes clowns but nothing else, for example.

#6, #7, #8, #25, #27, and # 28 are all either completely unsupported or directly contradicted by their source. And there's also the rather bad phrasings of #14, #18, and #29. That's 9 false or questionable out of 29. Not a great track record.