Not nearly as many as people claim, but yes.
Off the top if my head, Carlisle was changed by a vampire that lived in the sewer before sewers existed.

The only one in HP that I noticed was how Fred and George never noticed that Peter Pettigrew's name wasn't on the Marauders Map. Cassie already said the Twilight one. Plus, Rosalie's dad was a banker during the Great Depression yet nearly all banks were completely out of money and bankers themselves were extremely poor. How exactly could they have been wealthy during that?

We already discussed this link, but it looks like you forgot.

I said: Rosalie's family owned a small bank. They weren't nearly as effected as people who owned larger banks because less people withdrew their money at a slower rate.

Then you said: A small bank survives during The Great Depression but large big-buisness banks fail? That doesn't make any sense. The Hale's bank would have been the first one to go.

Then I said: Not every single bank went bankrupt.
"Surviving banks, unsure of the economic situation and concerned for their own survival, stopped being as willing to create new loans. This exacerbated the situation leading to less and less expenditures."
(link)
Halting loans due to ignorance and selfishness (Don't you think it's likely that Rosalie came from a family like this?) is what saved them.


Then you never responded.

Okay, I'm not saying this to bash Twilight because I wondered this when I liked Twilight more than Harry Potter, but how does the biology of Twilight work? If Rosalie can't change to become pregnant how can Edward? And even if he still had dead sperm he couldn't create a living child through that. Also, how can vampires have sex if they have no blood in their systems?

Again, not trying to bash just trying to understand.

Men don't need to "change" to make a baby. A male of age can make a baby any day of the year.
A woman only has two or three days a month.

Edward is not completely dead. Some of his bodily functions work, if they didn't , he's be completely dead, as in his senses would be inactive, his muscles would not function. His brain would not be active. There's also the blood he consumes. It's understood that it's the blood that keeps them alive and functioning, so it's make complete sense to assume that the blood would provide the nutrients or "ingredients" needed to produce living sperm and semen. Especially considering that blood contains everything needed.

Blood isn't required to have sex. Sex is just sex. You're probably under the premise that blood is required for a man to ejaculate, but this is not true. The only purpose an erection serves is to protect the body part from being damaged by the female, it doesn't "enable ejaculation" or anything. Men can release their sperm without an erection. There are men with ED who can reproduce without any erection at all.

So if his sperm carry part of his traits and he is partially dead wouldn't that's make it do his daughter can't age at all? Assuming that a positive (human) plus a negative (vampire) equal a negative (vampire) instead of a half and half?

Where is this "positive/ negative" concept coming from? What are you basing it on?
I don't think here is such a thing as positive or negative chromosomes.

@cassie Almost all the banks in New York failed. The Bank Runs were absolutely hectic and I'm sure a good amount of people would have raced for the King's bank as a last resort since it was very small. If the Kings weren't from New York then I guess it could pass but almost all banks in New York were shut down small or not. Banks surviving in NYC at the time was very uncommon. Stephenie should have paid attention during her eighth grade history lessons ._.

No. You may be right about New York City, but not the entire state of New York. Anyways, the King's bank was located in Rochester.
All throughout America, slightly less that 15,000 banks survived.
Why does it matter if people rushed to the King's bank? They weren't obligated to give all their money away to everyone who asked for it.
They stayed afloat because the DENIED loans to the people who visited their bank. That' how the banks survived.


A whole lot of people should have paid closer attention to their eighth grade history lessons.

^ fair enough.

What I mean is if his semen are created in his current state his child should be a full vampires. For example, his heart doesn't beat and that kind of dominates over Bella's beating heart which means that Renessme should not have a heart beat. Also, if the blood in a male vampires system can keep his reproduction system going why can't it do the same thing for females therefore allowing Rosalie to have children.

In the first book she said all of the bodily fluids stop and are replaced by venom, and the fact that sperm die in three days.

It really look like you're inventing new scientific facts. Why would no heart beat dominate over a heartbeat? It's not an inherited trait. There's no "heartbeat" gene. Edwsard has all the same genes he had as a human, the only difference is an extra chromosome, or whatever it was Carlisle said.
The genes are not what makes the vampire, it's the number of chromosomes.

Again, the female reproductive system is a cycle, the male is not. The vampires' bodies do not grow or progress. A cycle is a progression. Brain function is static, body movement is static. The male reproductive system is static. The female reproductive system is not.

Why does it matter that sperm dies in three days?

His sperm couldn't last all the time he had been a vampire, and in Twilght says it says that all fluid is replaced with venom, so he wouldn't have sperm and therefore can't have a child.

Well, I said that the sperm may be created by the blood. The body could extract the proper nutrients from the blood.
We wrote an article on the subject.
link

Well than why couldn't she explain it in th story?

It's not really that important?
She did provide enough information on her website. Anyone interested enough could find it.

So the basic biology of reproduction for a different type of undead that she has created isn't important enough...Hm.

Yes. What is important is that Carlisle figured out how it happened. We don't need to know all the messy details. You' apparently, really want to know because you're a curious person. If you're genuinely interested in knowing, and not just looking for another reason to insult Stephenie Meyer, you could do a little research to satisfy this curiosity.

I'm not trying to insult her I just don't understand why it's not in the book.

Yes, but how much I care about it depends on the book I'm reading. If the book is based on a historical event or is reteling it from a different point of view, then it really bugs me and will probably send me into a ranting episode. Fantasy based works of fiction? Not so much. I don't care that much that Rowling is terrible at maths and didn't get the number of students at Hogwarts right or that Meyers is not good at geography and wrote about the west coast of Brazil. I just chalk it up to creative license. Since I have to suspend my disbelief to read such stories in the first place, I just extend it to include said plot points/factual errors.

@ RonGetYourWand: Meyer did not include all that information in the books for the same reason Rowling left a lot of explanations out of her books ie it was not necessary to the story.