ATAR Notes: Forum
Archived Discussion => 2009 => End-of-year exams => Exam Discussion => Victoria => Biology => Topic started by: andrewloppol on November 02, 2009, 07:31:32 pm
-
.
-
Multiple Choice so far, post input:
1 D
2 A
3 B
4 C
5 C
6 C
7 D
8 D
9 B
10 C
11 C
12 B
13 C
14 B? A? how could you make all the butterflies go to ONE area...?
15 D
16 B
17 B
18 A
19 B
20 C? D?
21 D
22 D? A?
23 A
24 A
25 B
Short answer:
Post :P?
jst reading 5 qstns
5 cannot b C
-
yep, 5 was D. the locus had three allels, therefore multiple allelic
-
got all the same except i said
Q. 5 as D
Q 23 as B
and 25 as D, but i guessed that
-
got all the same except i said
Q. 5 as D
Q 23 as B
and 25 as D, but i guessed that
i thought abt 23 being B but it said plants grown in identical conditions so they had similar selection pressures so it cant be natural selection lead to different alleles.
-
Yeah... 23 seems like it would be B, since the allele is dominant, and therefore CAN easily be removed by selection
-
ahhh ok. well i think i got 21/25
-
Yeah... 23 seems like it would be B, since the allele is dominant, and therefore CAN easily be removed by selection
i must have said it wrongly. i meant has to b genetic drift cuz of change of allele frequency. and population is small which is a prerequistie for genetic drift.
-
My MC SOLUTIONS:
1.D
2.A
3.B
4.C
5.D
6.C
7.D
8.D
9.B
10.C
11.C
12.B
13.C
14.B
15.D
16.B
17.B
18.A
19.B
20.C
21.D
22.NOW THIS IS THE REAL SCREWED UP ONE I PUT(A)but IM PROBABLY WRONG
23.A
24.A
25.B
-
ahhh ok. well i think i got 21/25
i think i got same. but mayb got 20 depending on question 3
-
23 still looks like A to me.
Because you've taken an unrepresentative sample.
There are like, what, six plants?
Unrepresentative sample.
-
it's "in a controlled environment" though. Wouldn't that negate any chance events?
-
14 has to be A doesnt it? =[
-
14 has to be A doesnt it? =[
14 is B i think. idk dodgy question
-
23 still looks like A to me.
Because you've taken an unrepresentative sample.
There are like, what, six plants?
Unrepresentative sample.
I thought that the use of the term "only three generations" was sort of saying that its less time than expected for genetic drift, therefore natural selection.
-
wasn't the butterfly q A since they wanted to prevent extinction and they outlined that the butterfly populations where scattered thus no gene flow. So by putting them together, it allows for greater genetic diversity and therefore allow gene flow and prevent extinction.
also 23 was A because natural selection is unlikely to change the allele frequencies so dramatically in 3 generations. It takes much longer and it clearly emphasizes that a 'small' therefore genetic drift acted upon the population hence it was A not B.
Also 25 was B not D.
it would be hard to catch alll hte butterflies... better to plant more of those trees
-
23 still looks like A to me.
Because you've taken an unrepresentative sample.
There are like, what, six plants?
Unrepresentative sample.
I thought that the use of the term "only three generations" was sort of saying that its less time than expected for genetic drift, therefore natural selection.
NS takes a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnngggggg time so i think its GD
-
14 has to be A doesnt it? =[
14 is B i think. idk dodgy question
It does not say that there is a shortage of bursaria tree's though..
Who know's if planting more would have any effect?
-
wasn't the butterfly q A since they wanted to prevent extinction and they outlined that the butterfly populations where scattered thus no gene flow. So by putting them together, it allows for greater genetic diversity and therefore allow gene flow and prevent extinction.
also 23 was A because natural selection is unlikely to change the allele frequencies so dramatically in 3 generations. It takes much longer and it clearly emphasizes that a 'small' therefore genetic drift acted upon the population hence it was A not B.
Also 25 was B not D.
it would be hard to catch alll hte butterflies... better to plant more of those trees
It didn't mention any shortage of the trees though. The trees would only help if there was a shortage. otherwise, they wouldn't have an effect on the butterflies breeding.
-
wasn't the butterfly q A since they wanted to prevent extinction and they outlined that the butterfly populations where scattered thus no gene flow. So by putting them together, it allows for greater genetic diversity and therefore allow gene flow and prevent extinction.
also 23 was A because natural selection is unlikely to change the allele frequencies so dramatically in 3 generations. It takes much longer and it clearly emphasizes that a 'small' therefore genetic drift acted upon the population hence it was A not B.
Also 25 was B not D.
it would be hard to catch alll hte butterflies... better to plant more of those trees
yeh 14 imo was b. more plants equal more laying egs etc
-
My answers :) :
1. D (Only I put C because I'm a total fool (y))
2. A
3. B
4. C
5. D
6. C
7. D
8. D
9. B
10. C
11. C
12. B
13. C
14. A
15. D
16. B
17. B
18. A
19. B
20. C
21. D
22. D
23. A
24. A
25. B
-
23 still looks like A to me.
Because you've taken an unrepresentative sample.
There are like, what, six plants?
Unrepresentative sample.
I thought that the use of the term "only three generations" was sort of saying that its less time than expected for genetic drift, therefore natural selection.
genetic drift can change allele frequencies in matter of days.
wasn't the butterfly q A since they wanted to prevent extinction and they outlined that the butterfly populations where scattered thus no gene flow. So by putting them together, it allows for greater genetic diversity and therefore allow gene flow and prevent extinction.
also 23 was A because natural selection is unlikely to change the allele frequencies so dramatically in 3 generations. It takes much longer and it clearly emphasizes that a 'small' therefore genetic drift acted upon the population hence it was A not B.
Also 25 was B not D.
it would be hard to catch alll hte butterflies... better to plant more of those trees
but the question was clearly stating throughout the whole thing that the butterflies where found in different locations hence had no gene flow and little genetic variation. This is what i think happened with cheetahs.
bottleneck effect happened to cheetahs and if the populations are split, doesnt that mean more chance of one of them surviving in the diff enviro conditions also genetic var. between the populations
-
23 still looks like A to me.
Because you've taken an unrepresentative sample.
There are like, what, six plants?
Unrepresentative sample.
I thought that the use of the term "only three generations" was sort of saying that its less time than expected for genetic drift, therefore natural selection.
genetic drift can change allele frequencies in matter of days.
But only when you have many generations... In this case, there are only three generations, therefore genetic drift is unlikely to cause this sort of change in frequencies. Plus, the downward trend sort of indicates a huge selection pressure against the RR individuals.
-
wasn't the butterfly q A since they wanted to prevent extinction and they outlined that the butterfly populations where scattered thus no gene flow. So by putting them together, it allows for greater genetic diversity and therefore allow gene flow and prevent extinction.
also 23 was A because natural selection is unlikely to change the allele frequencies so dramatically in 3 generations. It takes much longer and it clearly emphasizes that a 'small' therefore genetic drift acted upon the population hence it was A not B.
Also 25 was B not D.
it would be hard to catch alll hte butterflies... better to plant more of those trees
yeh 14 imo was b. more plants equal more laying egs etc
But if you just do that, then there won't be an increase in the genetic variation.
And that's the BEST way to overcome this problem, increasing the genetic variation.
Clearly either would help prevent extinction.
But even so, whose to say there would be enough ants nests or whatever they were to accommodate the larvae once the eggs hatched?
I stand by moving them so that there is greater genetic diversity.
-
23 still looks like A to me.
Because you've taken an unrepresentative sample.
There are like, what, six plants?
Unrepresentative sample.
I thought that the use of the term "only three generations" was sort of saying that its less time than expected for genetic drift, therefore natural selection.
genetic drift can change allele frequencies in matter of days.
wasn't the butterfly q A since they wanted to prevent extinction and they outlined that the butterfly populations where scattered thus no gene flow. So by putting them together, it allows for greater genetic diversity and therefore allow gene flow and prevent extinction.
also 23 was A because natural selection is unlikely to change the allele frequencies so dramatically in 3 generations. It takes much longer and it clearly emphasizes that a 'small' therefore genetic drift acted upon the population hence it was A not B.
Also 25 was B not D.
it would be hard to catch alll hte butterflies... better to plant more of those trees
but the question was clearly stating throughout the whole thing that the butterflies where found in different locations hence had no gene flow and little genetic variation. This is what i think happened with cheetahs.
bottleneck effect happened to cheetahs and if the populations are split, doesnt that mean more chance of one of them surviving in the diff enviro conditions also genetic var. between the populations
but they're the same species and if the populations are isolated, there is little genetic variation within those populations. So the alleles remain constant in those populations and there is no gene flow. By allowing these butterflies to come together as one population, than they allow for greater diversity in the gene pool and therefore increase chances of the butterflies surviving. Bushes i don't think had anything to do with the q based on the info they gave us.
The bushes would allow more opportunity for the butterflies to lay their eggs, that was wall.
Not an increase in the genetic diversity.
-
Also, with question 20... I thought it was D.... >_<
-
for SA 3 ii) could temperature be there? or is that borderline? cuz higher temperature means drier climates and so on
-
Also, with question 20... I thought it was D.... >_<
But if this were the truth, then the mutation might stop the regulatory gene from functioning correctly and therefore would affect the transcription of other genes.
Eg, if there was a mutation in the operator, a repressor could no longer bind and the gene product would be continuously transcribed on the distant gene that that operator activates.
-
23 still looks like A to me.
Because you've taken an unrepresentative sample.
There are like, what, six plants?
Unrepresentative sample.
I thought that the use of the term "only three generations" was sort of saying that its less time than expected for genetic drift, therefore natural selection.
genetic drift can change allele frequencies in matter of days.
wasn't the butterfly q A since they wanted to prevent extinction and they outlined that the butterfly populations where scattered thus no gene flow. So by putting them together, it allows for greater genetic diversity and therefore allow gene flow and prevent extinction.
also 23 was A because natural selection is unlikely to change the allele frequencies so dramatically in 3 generations. It takes much longer and it clearly emphasizes that a 'small' therefore genetic drift acted upon the population hence it was A not B.
Also 25 was B not D.
it would be hard to catch alll hte butterflies... better to plant more of those trees
but the question was clearly stating throughout the whole thing that the butterflies where found in different locations hence had no gene flow and little genetic variation. This is what i think happened with cheetahs.
bottleneck effect happened to cheetahs and if the populations are split, doesnt that mean more chance of one of them surviving in the diff enviro conditions also genetic var. between the populations
but they're the same species and if the populations are isolated, there is little genetic variation within those populations. So the alleles remain constant in those populations and there is no gene flow. By allowing these butterflies to come together as one population, than they allow for greater diversity in the gene pool and therefore increase chances of the butterflies surviving. Bushes i don't think had anything to do with the q based on the info they gave us.
The bushes would allow more opportunity for the butterflies to lay their eggs, that was wall.
Not an increase in the genetic diversity.
but it never said the bushes where in decline or under threat. we can only assume that the butterflies laid their eggs on the bushes nothing else.
but more bushes meant that they could lay more. the amount of flies at that moment is small right so if u move to one area its not gonna have genetic diversity = bottleneck effect?
-
23 still looks like A to me.
Because you've taken an unrepresentative sample.
There are like, what, six plants?
Unrepresentative sample.
I thought that the use of the term "only three generations" was sort of saying that its less time than expected for genetic drift, therefore natural selection.
genetic drift can change allele frequencies in matter of days.
wasn't the butterfly q A since they wanted to prevent extinction and they outlined that the butterfly populations where scattered thus no gene flow. So by putting them together, it allows for greater genetic diversity and therefore allow gene flow and prevent extinction.
also 23 was A because natural selection is unlikely to change the allele frequencies so dramatically in 3 generations. It takes much longer and it clearly emphasizes that a 'small' therefore genetic drift acted upon the population hence it was A not B.
Also 25 was B not D.
it would be hard to catch alll hte butterflies... better to plant more of those trees
but the question was clearly stating throughout the whole thing that the butterflies where found in different locations hence had no gene flow and little genetic variation. This is what i think happened with cheetahs.
bottleneck effect happened to cheetahs and if the populations are split, doesnt that mean more chance of one of them surviving in the diff enviro conditions also genetic var. between the populations
but they're the same species and if the populations are isolated, there is little genetic variation within those populations. So the alleles remain constant in those populations and there is no gene flow. By allowing these butterflies to come together as one population, than they allow for greater diversity in the gene pool and therefore increase chances of the butterflies surviving. Bushes i don't think had anything to do with the q based on the info they gave us.
The bushes would allow more opportunity for the butterflies to lay their eggs, that was wall.
Not an increase in the genetic diversity.
but it never said the bushes where in decline or under threat. we can only assume that the butterflies laid their eggs on the bushes nothing else.
I think we're going to start arguing against each other for no reason.
We both agree that the answer isn't bushes yes?
I was just stating what bushes had to do with the question.
-
Also, with question 20... I thought it was D.... >_<
nah it's C
all i did from that was. bacteria have one chromosome and so the genes HAVE to be located on that chromosome so iw as like yep C . what a guess haa
-
23 still looks like A to me.
Because you've taken an unrepresentative sample.
There are like, what, six plants?
Unrepresentative sample.
I thought that the use of the term "only three generations" was sort of saying that its less time than expected for genetic drift, therefore natural selection.
genetic drift can change allele frequencies in matter of days.
wasn't the butterfly q A since they wanted to prevent extinction and they outlined that the butterfly populations where scattered thus no gene flow. So by putting them together, it allows for greater genetic diversity and therefore allow gene flow and prevent extinction.
also 23 was A because natural selection is unlikely to change the allele frequencies so dramatically in 3 generations. It takes much longer and it clearly emphasizes that a 'small' therefore genetic drift acted upon the population hence it was A not B.
Also 25 was B not D.
it would be hard to catch alll hte butterflies... better to plant more of those trees
but the question was clearly stating throughout the whole thing that the butterflies where found in different locations hence had no gene flow and little genetic variation. This is what i think happened with cheetahs.
bottleneck effect happened to cheetahs and if the populations are split, doesnt that mean more chance of one of them surviving in the diff enviro conditions also genetic var. between the populations
but they're the same species and if the populations are isolated, there is little genetic variation within those populations. So the alleles remain constant in those populations and there is no gene flow. By allowing these butterflies to come together as one population, than they allow for greater diversity in the gene pool and therefore increase chances of the butterflies surviving. Bushes i don't think had anything to do with the q based on the info they gave us.
The bushes would allow more opportunity for the butterflies to lay their eggs, that was wall.
Not an increase in the genetic diversity.
but it never said the bushes where in decline or under threat. we can only assume that the butterflies laid their eggs on the bushes nothing else.
but more bushes meant that they could lay more. the amount of flies at that moment is small right so if u move to one area its not gonna have genetic diversity = bottleneck effect?
If you move to one area, the gene pool will increase in size and variation.
Bottleneck effect is where there is a REDUCTION in population size, not an increase.
-
23 still looks like A to me.
Because you've taken an unrepresentative sample.
There are like, what, six plants?
Unrepresentative sample.
I thought that the use of the term "only three generations" was sort of saying that its less time than expected for genetic drift, therefore natural selection.
genetic drift can change allele frequencies in matter of days.
wasn't the butterfly q A since they wanted to prevent extinction and they outlined that the butterfly populations where scattered thus no gene flow. So by putting them together, it allows for greater genetic diversity and therefore allow gene flow and prevent extinction.
also 23 was A because natural selection is unlikely to change the allele frequencies so dramatically in 3 generations. It takes much longer and it clearly emphasizes that a 'small' therefore genetic drift acted upon the population hence it was A not B.
Also 25 was B not D.
it would be hard to catch alll hte butterflies... better to plant more of those trees
but the question was clearly stating throughout the whole thing that the butterflies where found in different locations hence had no gene flow and little genetic variation. This is what i think happened with cheetahs.
bottleneck effect happened to cheetahs and if the populations are split, doesnt that mean more chance of one of them surviving in the diff enviro conditions also genetic var. between the populations
but they're the same species and if the populations are isolated, there is little genetic variation within those populations. So the alleles remain constant in those populations and there is no gene flow. By allowing these butterflies to come together as one population, than they allow for greater diversity in the gene pool and therefore increase chances of the butterflies surviving. Bushes i don't think had anything to do with the q based on the info they gave us.
The bushes would allow more opportunity for the butterflies to lay their eggs, that was wall.
Not an increase in the genetic diversity.
but it never said the bushes where in decline or under threat. we can only assume that the butterflies laid their eggs on the bushes nothing else.
but more bushes meant that they could lay more. the amount of flies at that moment is small right so if u move to one area its not gonna have genetic diversity = bottleneck effect?
where does it say the amount of flies is small? :S
first line. "A small population of butterflies was found"
-
23 A - All the other three forms are over many generations. Genetic drift is fast chance allele changes.
NOOOO. I totally changed my answer to Natural Selection at the last minute because of the ~controlled conditions~. Dammit all. lol not even looking at the other solutions yet.
-
It doesn't say now though! It says in 1938.
It doesn't say anything about the present population.
But still, all you know is that there is little genetic diversity.
There could still be a relatively substantial number of organisms in the population.
-
It doesn't say now though! It says in 1938.
It doesn't say anything about the present population.
But still, all you know is that there is little genetic diversity.
There could still be a relatively substantial number of organisms in the population.
yeh but if u originally have little genetic diversity then u most likely will not increase it unless the numbers increase rite? so to increase the numbers u need to plant the damn plants XD aha soz i think im going over the top here :P
-
short answer questions .\---> answers??
-
anyways the question asks how this species can escape EXCTINCTION :angel:
-
It doesn't say now though! It says in 1938.
It doesn't say anything about the present population.
But still, all you know is that there is little genetic diversity.
There could still be a relatively substantial number of organisms in the population.
yeh but if u originally have little genetic diversity then u most likely will not increase it unless the numbers increase rite? so to increase the numbers u need to plant the damn plants XD aha soz i think im going over the top here :P
And here you hit the nail on the head.
We have little genetic diversity, but it is possible to have a relatively large population size with little genetic diversity!
But if you just plant the plants, if your theory is correct, then how will that increase the genetic diversity?
Wouldn't increasing the number of plants merely mean that there would still be little genetic diversity in the generations to come?
Clearly introducing new alleles to the population quickly would be the BEST way to tackle this problem.
-
It doesn't say now though! It says in 1938.
It doesn't say anything about the present population.
But still, all you know is that there is little genetic diversity.
There could still be a relatively substantial number of organisms in the population.
if there was, then PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS EXTINCT!!!!
-
Multiple Choice so far, post input:
1 D
2 A
3 B
4 C
5 C - Heard it's D, just seemed too obvious as it was in the stem of the question?
6 C
7 D
8 D
9 B
10 C
11 C
12 B
13 C
14 B? A? - how could you make all the butterflies go to ONE area...?
15 D
16 B
17 B
18 A
19 B
20 C? D?
21 D
22 D? A?
23 A - All the other three forms are over many generations. Genetic drift is fast chance allele changes. E.g a 1 minute Bottleneck.
24 A
25 B - I said D, but look at B again.
Short answer:
1
c gene cloning
d same answer but did not mention stop and start codons. am i in trouble?
2
c dodge question . i wrote pigment produced . but asked for 2 phenotypic differences. idk how enzyme production is different phenotypes
4
ai i wrote something like low oxygen levels and cold temps. is that arrite for fossilisation conditions?
5
-
It doesn't say now though! It says in 1938.
It doesn't say anything about the present population.
But still, all you know is that there is little genetic diversity.
There could still be a relatively substantial number of organisms in the population.
if there was, then PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS EXTINCT!!!!
But.
It was rediscovered in like, the 90s.
There was time for it to grow.
Also, I STILL DON'T THINK THAT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF ORGANISMS MEANS AN INCREASE IN THE GENETIC VARIATION.
If there was a sudden change in the environment....
ALL OF THEM WOULD DIE. REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER. BECAUSE THE SELECTION PRESSURE WOULD CHANGE.
Arghhhhh, hahahahahaha.
Sorry.
-
It doesn't say now though! It says in 1938.
It doesn't say anything about the present population.
But still, all you know is that there is little genetic diversity.
There could still be a relatively substantial number of organisms in the population.
yeh but if u originally have little genetic diversity then u most likely will not increase it unless the numbers increase rite? so to increase the numbers u need to plant the damn plants XD aha soz i think im going over the top here :P
BUTTTT the alleles in the population is what can be passed on to offspring. NEW ALLELES WON'T ARISE JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE OFFSPRING. UNLESS mutation which would be stupid to imply. therefore by ALLOWING gene flow between several populations you increasee genetic diversity
but there is small genetic diversity to begin with!
-
loll im going crazy here.but so far think ive lost about 7 marks upto question 5. looking better than i thought XD
-
It doesn't say now though! It says in 1938.
It doesn't say anything about the present population.
But still, all you know is that there is little genetic diversity.
There could still be a relatively substantial number of organisms in the population.
if there was, then PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS EXTINCT!!!!
But.
It was rediscovered in like, the 90s.
There was time for it to grow.
Also, I STILL DON'T THINK THAT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF ORGANISMS MEANS AN INCREASE IN THE GENETIC VARIATION.
If there was a sudden change in the environment....
ALL OF THEM WOULD DIE. REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER. BECAUSE THE SELECTION PRESSURE WOULD CHANGE.
Arghhhhh, hahahahahaha.
Sorry.
increasing the number of organisms WOULD INCREASE GENETIC VARIATION (sexual reproduction involving meiosis etcetc)
-
i think this is the first time in any exam there are so many different interpretations for an answer
It doesn't say now though! It says in 1938.
It doesn't say anything about the present population.
But still, all you know is that there is little genetic diversity.
There could still be a relatively substantial number of organisms in the population.
if there was, then PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS EXTINCT!!!!
But.
It was rediscovered in like, the 90s.
There was time for it to grow.
Also, I STILL DON'T THINK THAT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF ORGANISMS MEANS AN INCREASE IN THE GENETIC VARIATION.
If there was a sudden change in the environment....
ALL OF THEM WOULD DIE. REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER. BECAUSE THE SELECTION PRESSURE WOULD CHANGE.
Arghhhhh, hahahahahaha.
Sorry.
increasing the number of organisms WOULD INCREASE GENETIC VARIATION (sexual reproduction involving meiosis etcetc)
wait ur saying its B rite?
-
For question 3, I put 9cm re: OP.
nnnnnnn IT IS NOT THE BEST WAY.
they've been going at that for yearz, clearly.
they were never extinct, and they were always small. it hasn't worked very well for them has it!?
-
For question 3, I put 9cm re: OP.
nnnnnnn IT IS NOT THE BEST WAY.
they've been going at that for yearz, clearly.
they were never extinct, and they were always small. it hasn't worked very well for them has it!?
ohcrap ur rite about the height. shit! i wrote 5
-
It doesn't say now though! It says in 1938.
It doesn't say anything about the present population.
But still, all you know is that there is little genetic diversity.
There could still be a relatively substantial number of organisms in the population.
if there was, then PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS EXTINCT!!!!
But.
It was rediscovered in like, the 90s.
There was time for it to grow.
Also, I STILL DON'T THINK THAT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF ORGANISMS MEANS AN INCREASE IN THE GENETIC VARIATION.
If there was a sudden change in the environment....
ALL OF THEM WOULD DIE. REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER. BECAUSE THE SELECTION PRESSURE WOULD CHANGE.
Arghhhhh, hahahahahaha.
Sorry.
increasing the number of organisms WOULD INCREASE GENETIC VARIATION (sexual reproduction involving meiosis etcetc)
BUTTTTTTTTTTT THE WHAT'S IN THE GENE POOL IS WHAT YOU CAN WORK WITH. YOU CAN'T SUDDENLY INTRODUCE A NEW ALLELE FROM NO WHERE TO THE OFFSPRING... THAT'S LIKE I'LL HAVE A CHILD WITH SCALESS BECAUSE I'LL HAVE 100 INSTEAD OF 5 KIDS NOW SOORRY FOR THE CAPS I FORGOT TO TURN IT OFF
THERE WAS ALREADY A LITTLE GENETIC VARIATION IN THE SMALL POPULATION AND SEXUAL REPRODUCTION INCREASED IT....
-
>.<
And also for Q5?
It should be the probe is complementary to the allele DNA or whatever it is?
Can't remember exact wording. Anyway, not the same.
And. dw studyinghard. I made the dumbest mistake re: the mistake in gel elecrophoresis.
For some reason, in the second picture, I thought the DNA had moved forward, but it was the well!
I thought the DNA that had moved backwards was the well.
Stupid rushing.
So I said something else, quickly.
Now I see it :(
-
idk abt anyone else but im loving this aha. this is quite intense. whose right and whose wrong! XD
-
>.<
And also for Q5?
It should be the probe is complementary to the allele DNA or whatever it is?
Can't remember exact wording. Anyway, not the same.
And. dw studyinghard. I made the dumbest mistake re: the mistake in gel elecrophoresis.
For some reason, in the second picture, I thought the DNA had moved forward, but it was the well!
I thought the DNA that had moved backwards was the well.
Stupid rushing.
So I said something else, quickly.
Now I see it :(
oh yeh that question was crap. yeh with the probe complentary thing in question 7 isnt it? didnt dare write DNA or RNA becuz complentary becuz it didnt say so i wrote molecule. regretting now though should have written both XD
-
It doesn't say now though! It says in 1938.
It doesn't say anything about the present population.
But still, all you know is that there is little genetic diversity.
There could still be a relatively substantial number of organisms in the population.
if there was, then PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS EXTINCT!!!!
But.
It was rediscovered in like, the 90s.
There was time for it to grow.
Also, I STILL DON'T THINK THAT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF ORGANISMS MEANS AN INCREASE IN THE GENETIC VARIATION.
If there was a sudden change in the environment....
ALL OF THEM WOULD DIE. REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER. BECAUSE THE SELECTION PRESSURE WOULD CHANGE.
Arghhhhh, hahahahahaha.
Sorry.
increasing the number of organisms WOULD INCREASE GENETIC VARIATION (sexual reproduction involving meiosis etcetc)
BUTTTTTTTTTTT THE WHAT'S IN THE GENE POOL IS WHAT YOU CAN WORK WITH. YOU CAN'T SUDDENLY INTRODUCE A NEW ALLELE FROM NO WHERE TO THE OFFSPRING... THAT'S LIKE I'LL HAVE A CHILD WITH SCALESS BECAUSE I'LL HAVE 100 INSTEAD OF 5 KIDS NOW SOORRY FOR THE CAPS I FORGOT TO TURN IT OFF
THERE WAS ALREADY A LITTLE GENETIC VARIATION IN THE SMALL POPULATION AND SEXUAL REPRODUCTION INCREASED IT....
OKAY LET ME SETTLE THIS ONCE AND FOR FREAKIN ALL.
http://i34.tinypic.com/sfhshw.jpg
Does increasing population size via sexual reproduction increase genetic variation? Yes, somewhat.
Does introducing alleles increase genetic variation? Yes, definitely.
BUT WHICH ONE OF THESE ANSWERS IS THE BBBBBBEEEEESSSSSTTTTT ALTERNATIVE?
Option 2.
-
LOLLL
It doesn't say now though! It says in 1938.
It doesn't say anything about the present population.
But still, all you know is that there is little genetic diversity.
There could still be a relatively substantial number of organisms in the population.
if there was, then PEOPLE WOULD NOT HAVE THOUGHT IT WAS EXTINCT!!!!
But.
It was rediscovered in like, the 90s.
There was time for it to grow.
Also, I STILL DON'T THINK THAT INCREASING THE NUMBER OF ORGANISMS MEANS AN INCREASE IN THE GENETIC VARIATION.
If there was a sudden change in the environment....
ALL OF THEM WOULD DIE. REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER. BECAUSE THE SELECTION PRESSURE WOULD CHANGE.
Arghhhhh, hahahahahaha.
Sorry.
increasing the number of organisms WOULD INCREASE GENETIC VARIATION (sexual reproduction involving meiosis etcetc)
BUTTTTTTTTTTT THE WHAT'S IN THE GENE POOL IS WHAT YOU CAN WORK WITH. YOU CAN'T SUDDENLY INTRODUCE A NEW ALLELE FROM NO WHERE TO THE OFFSPRING... THAT'S LIKE I'LL HAVE A CHILD WITH SCALESS BECAUSE I'LL HAVE 100 INSTEAD OF 5 KIDS NOW SOORRY FOR THE CAPS I FORGOT TO TURN IT OFF
THERE WAS ALREADY A LITTLE GENETIC VARIATION IN THE SMALL POPULATION AND SEXUAL REPRODUCTION INCREASED IT....
OKAY LET ME SETTLE THIS ONCE AND FOR FREAKIN ALL.
http://i34.tinypic.com/sfhshw.jpg
Does increasing population size via sexual reproduction increase genetic variation? Yes, somewhat.
Does introducing alleles increase genetic variation? Yes, definitely.
BUT WHICH ONE OF THESE ANSWERS IS THE BBBBBBEEEEESSSSSTTTTT ALTERNATIVE?
Option 2.
LOLLLL YES (L)
-
Haven't commented on this yet because I'm not comlpletely convinced to either A or B. How does B equate to 'definitely increasing genetic variation'?
EDIT: Although I am pretty much 90% on A for those interested to know.
-
B doesn't? Only moving the butterflies into the one area would definitely increase the genetic variation y?
-
Haven't commented on this yet because I'm not comlpletely convinced to either A or B. How does B equate to 'definitely increasing genetic variation'?
EDIT: Although I am pretty much 90% on A for those interested to know.
recombinations, mutations and such through more eggs etc
-
fk i think it might be A now
-
is anyone workin on a full set of solutions?
-
is anyone workin on a full set of solutions?
andrewloppol did in that other thread.
-
is anyone workin on a full set of solutions?
read first post tool :P
i think like most of the same answers as u . although the cultural evolution questions i thought there can be many answers. lets hope everyone agress with ur answers. although some of the mC's dodgy. whatever. this exam was gayXD
-
Haven't commented on this yet because I'm not comlpletely convinced to either A or B. How does B equate to 'definitely increasing genetic variation'?
EDIT: Although I am pretty much 90% on A for those interested to know.
recombinations, mutations and such through more eggs etc
That comes with the assumption that access to such bushes were the limiting factor to begin with. My thought process behind this question is as follows;
1. There are now 6 populations at Kiata, 1 at Castlemaine, 0 at Eltham; hence the environmental conditions at Eltham are not suited to the genetic characteristics of the small initial population.
2. Hence, the initial population migrated in the direction of Kiata. Note how Kiata is further away from Eltham than Castlemaine, and hence its environmental characteristics would be more different.
3. That means a certain environmental characteristic in Kiata is more suited to the butterflies.
4. This environmental characteristic could have been the lack of bushes limiting reproduction.
5. However, this cannot be a certainty. There are plenty of possible factors. e.g. predators (NIGGERSAURUS!?) in Eltham eating them up.
6. In such a case, the best answer is A, in order to increase genetic diversity, and solve any possible factor, regardless of what it is.
EDIT: Once again, VCAA may decide to award two answers to this question as they have done in Biology exams many times. I do find it to be a bit ambiguous, but that's the best reasoning I can give you guys in order to conclude anything.
-
With Q20 MC the Structural and Regulatory Gene Qs...
D could technically be correct possibly- "Mutations in DISTANT regulatory genes will have no effect on their related structural genes in eukaryotes"
because the mutation wont actually affect the structural gene itself, itll just affect its expression, hence the gene itself wont affected by the mutation just its operation!?!?
i still see how C is probably correct but possible not ALL (key word) regulatory genes are all in the chromosome
-
idk whats happening with that butterflies question but im gonna stick with B. but i can see how A could be write. oh well could go either way
-
btw could 12 b D. ?
-
thanks for the solutions guysssss.
-
With Q20 MC the Structural and Regulatory Gene Qs...
D could technically be correct possibly- "Mutations in DISTANT regulatory genes will have no effect on their related structural genes in eukaryotes"
because the mutation wont actually affect the structural gene itself, itll just affect its expression, hence the gene itself wont affected by the mutation just its operation!?!?
i still see how C is probably correct but possible not ALL (key word) regulatory genes are all in the chromosome
But it says ~related~ structural genes so there would be an effect of some extent.
-
how can it be A..
your trying to avoid extinction in the THREE AREAS.. by moving them all to one area arent you going to lose populations in atleast two areas?
read the q..
-
True Greggler.
How could you move every single butterfly anyway? It's unreasonable.
The bushes is correct :D.
It's unreasonable because it's not quite possible but it doesn't ask what's possible; it asks what the best way to increase the genetic variation is.
-
how can it be A..
your trying to avoid extinction in the THREE AREAS.. by moving them all to one area arent you going to lose populations in atleast two areas?
read the q..
You can move them back after they've reproduced. Besides, going along with your interpretation, this means we'll have extinction in two; not three.
True Greggler.
How could you move every single butterfly anyway? It's unreasonable.
The bushes is correct :D.
Just strip all the shrubs of eggs. And as above, I don't think practicality is meant to be a consideration.
-
how can it be A..
your trying to avoid extinction in the THREE AREAS.. by moving them all to one area arent you going to lose populations in atleast two areas?
read the q..
You can move them back after they've reproduced. Besides, going along with your interpretation, this means we'll have extinction in two; not three.
True Greggler.
How could you move every single butterfly anyway? It's unreasonable.
The bushes is correct :D.
Just strip all the shrubs of eggs. And as above, I don't think practicality is meant to be a consideration.
Hang on.
Question says:
Small pop at (Eltham)
Small pop at (Castle.)
6 places in Kiata.
If you moved them all into one area, why? What's the point? If they are surviving in other areas, put more bushes there? Increase numbers.
The best option -> put more trees in Elthanm and Castle so that more can reproduce.
This is quite cyclical really. I could counter-argue that if I want to, but then I can think of counter-arguments to my own counter-arguments. There's too many ambiguities, or more specifically, WHY did they move away from Eltham i.e. what selection pressure was there.
-
you could just imagine the exam setting panel. with these ambiguos questions they mean to piss us off. same as for the subjective q on humans influencing selective pressures; could just imagine some examiner having a little chuckle to themselves
-
lol anyway,, im quite happy with my overall result/prediction
19-22/25 on MC (lol, ambiguity)
44-46/50 on SA
i reckon im around 65/75, which should hopefully secure an A+
-
i reckon im around 65/75, which should hopefully secure an A+
the way its looking 65/75 will be a very good score..unless ofcourse vcaa start handing out marks because of their beautifully worded questions
-
Hahah :P!
They were already in one area though.
I'm sticking with B, it is impossible and a very good way as the butterflies will then multiply.
(http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/images/butterfly-sex-side-300w-8-07.jpg)
Woo, I had B as well.
-
lol...
i still cant get over it.. and its really only biol i think that has this problem with such ambiguity..
I mean atleast 10 marks on this exam probably couldnt be found in text books etc. and are simply a test of your general knowledge etc. on the day
and in addition to this are their, as you said, 'beautifully worded questions' which are subject to interpretation
any way, enough ranting, i gotta get studying for revs :|
-
Hahah :P!
They were already in one area though.
I'm sticking with B, it is impossible and a very good way as the butterflies will then multiply.
(http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/images/butterfly-sex-side-300w-8-07.jpg)
Woo, I had B as well.
B ftw
-
i think im looking at loosing 5 in the mC and maybe 10 ? (im marking myself hard) on the SA. would 60/75 be borderline A+?
-
With Q20 MC the Structural and Regulatory Gene Qs...
D could technically be correct possibly- "Mutations in DISTANT regulatory genes will have no effect on their related structural genes in eukaryotes"
because the mutation wont actually affect the structural gene itself, itll just affect its expression, hence the gene itself wont affected by the mutation just its operation!?!?
i still see how C is probably correct but possible not ALL (key word) regulatory genes are all in the chromosome
But it says ~related~ structural genes so there would be an effect of some extent.
but they are said to be "distant" so the mutation of the regulatory gene will not physically do anything to the structural gene
-
With Q20 MC the Structural and Regulatory Gene Qs...
D could technically be correct possibly- "Mutations in DISTANT regulatory genes will have no effect on their related structural genes in eukaryotes"
because the mutation wont actually affect the structural gene itself, itll just affect its expression, hence the gene itself wont affected by the mutation just its operation!?!?
i still see how C is probably correct but possible not ALL (key word) regulatory genes are all in the chromosome
But it says ~related~ structural genes so there would be an effect of some extent.
but they are said to be "distant" so the mutation of the regulatory gene will not physically do anything to the structural gene
distant just means they are located somewhere faraway in another place of the genome, it doesnt mean it wont have not effect. anyway the thing said" Mutations in DISTANT regulatory genes will have no effect on their RELATED structural genes"
-
i got 25/25 and 49/50 ye.... 50 for me im so happpyyy!!!
-
i got 25/25 and 49/50 ye.... 50 for me im so happpyyy!!!
So is the butterfly question A or B?
But holy crap, good job.
-
i got 25/25 and 49/50 ye.... 50 for me im so happpyyy!!!
Based off what? =S We don't know if the solutions posted are actually right ahah
-
We can rave about the answers all we want, but until they come out we won't know the real answers because of the beautifully worded questions. But seriously you'd think that in 4 months that they would be able to get it right.
-
i got 25/25 and 49/50 ye.... 50 for me im so happpyyy!!!
Based off what? =S We don't know if the solutions posted are actually right ahah
Pwned. But I bet he/she did well.
Ok shea..... LOL ;) did ya read ma answers?
Yeah pal saw that it took you an hour...lol
But I had pretty much the same as that and so I'm hoping for around 65.
Good job man on the answers
-
God you suck at quotes.
Back to topic!
Good year everyone, goodnight :P.
Shut up fag boy
-
I've just read through all 8 pages, the butterfly question was quite funny.
So what was the answer? i put A btw
-
For question 2c. would i still get marks for saying:Max doesnt produce phenylpyruvic acid, jack does.
Max will have melanin pigment in hair and skin colour, jack doesn't.
-
I notice reading the question now it says phenotypic diff. Ah well maybe we'll get one mark.
-
Crap!! i put 5cm in Q3.
-
Also for question 6a is simply saying big toe enough to get a mark.
-
6a. I said it was because of the lack of handprints so the animals didn't walk on 4's...
ouch...looks like I lost that mark
stupid me -.-
-
so would you be wrong if you said hybridisation was attraction of 2 DNA strands together by complimentary base pairing?
and with the isolation barrier for allopatric speciation if i said "reproductive isolation" would that be acceptable you reckon?
gene probe i did everything except mention it is labelled with fluorescent marker there goes that mark (N)
-
what was the answer to the question that said ' what can you infer about the chemical code for this allele'?
EDIT: crap didnt read the first post.
anyway i said that it was made of DNA (cuz it said 'chemical') , which is universal . and it has the complementary nucletide sequence
-
25/25 bitchessssssss :p
-
For 'binary fission' I wrote: "the process whereby prokaryotic organisms reproduce." do you think I'll get that mark? :S
-
For 'binary fission' I wrote: "the process whereby prokaryotic organisms reproduce." do you think I'll get that mark? :S
I think you had to use the keyword 'asexual'.
-
For 'binary fission' I wrote: "the process whereby prokaryotic organisms reproduce." do you think I'll get that mark? :S
I think key words: Reproduction, Bacteria(porkaryote), Genetically identical
-
Yeah but you have to write asexual reproduction? I thought that would be one of the most important factors.
And I didn't write genetically identical. I was going to, but then in this unit all we've learnt about is bloody mutation, so I thought I might be marked down if I presupposed that.
I suppose genetically identical implies asexual reproduction, though.
-
would i get a mark for writing: asexual reproduction in which a cell splits in two?
-
So, i won't get a mark for putting "the way cells divide and multiply in bacterias"? :/
-
would i get a mark for writing: asexual reproduction in which a cell splits in two?
only if you said prokaryotic organisms do it (basic euakryotes do it aswell but i think "cell" would be to vague)
-
damn... why could'nt they get us to explain meiosis instead...
-
I said bacteria but I forgot to put prokaryote after that.
Guuuuud enough?
-
I said bacteria but I forgot to put prokaryote after that.
Guuuuud enough?
should be, did you mention asexual reproduction.
-
reproduction, asexual same thing as long as you didn't say SEXUAL reproduction
-
damn... why could'nt they get us to explain meiosis instead...
yeah that would've been good
learnt meiosis on sunday :P
-
i dont understand how the answer to the "Image D" qs is at Point W
its obviously anaphase, but the ENTIRE diagram is of the mitosis process, the tiny little time at about 10'o clock on the circle is cytokinesis im pretty sure?
i thought it was point R judging by that because its third in the sequence of P Q then R?
-
i dont understand how the answer to the "Image D" qs is at Point W
its obviously anaphase, but the ENTIRE diagram is of the mitosis process, the tiny little time at about 10'o clock on the circle is cytokinesis im pretty sure?
i thought it was point R judging by that because its third in the sequence of P Q then R?
Doesnt the diagram include G1, Sphase, G2 then theres the mitosis bit and the really tiny bit is cytokinesis??
-
i dont understand how the answer to the "Image D" qs is at Point W
its obviously anaphase, but the ENTIRE diagram is of the mitosis process, the tiny little time at about 10'o clock on the circle is cytokinesis im pretty sure?
i thought it was point R judging by that because its third in the sequence of P Q then R?
Doesnt the diagram include G1, Sphase, G2 then theres the mitosis bit and the really tiny bit is cytokinesis??
nah i really doubt it because if you remeber diagrams of the whole cell cycle, mitosis is a very small part, not the size of the section your referring to
if it was of the entire cell cycle i think mitosis would best represent the tiny bit
actually looking at it again..i think what your saying is right lol fuuuuuuuuck
-
Why did they put "Gap 1" in one of the sections for btw?
-
well i failed that exam.
-
So, i won't get a mark for putting "the way cells divide and multiply in bacterias"? :/
-
wasn't the butterfly q A since they wanted to prevent extinction and they outlined that the butterfly populations where scattered thus no gene flow. So by putting them together, it allows for greater genetic diversity and therefore allow gene flow and prevent extinction.
also 23 was A because natural selection is unlikely to change the allele frequencies so dramatically in 3 generations. It takes much longer and it clearly emphasizes that a 'small' therefore genetic drift acted upon the population hence it was A not B.
Also 25 was B not D.
I got A also... and agree fully with this explanation... by placing all the butterflies in a single location where they are able to interbreed, the gene pool of this population would be much larger than the gene pools of the small isolated populations and hence greater genetic and phenotypic variation will result. this increased phenotypic variation will give the species of butterfly a better chance of survival
-
I notice reading the question now it says phenotypic diff. Ah well maybe we'll get one mark.
isnt phenotype the expression of a gene
-
I think B is correct. The question states something like butterflies were laying eggs everywhere on those trees in 1957 people thought they were extinct and in 1978 they reappeared again. This suggested that by laying eggs everywhere they can survive. Hence, planting more of those trees for them to spread their eggs and increase likelihood to survive.
-
I notice reading the question now it says phenotypic diff. Ah well maybe we'll get one mark.
isnt phenotype the expression of a gene
Phenotype is the result of the expression of the genotype yes. But I am pretty sure the question is looking for phenotype differences. You should have said one guy would have pigment in hair and skin and the other wouldn't
-
I think B is correct. The question states something like butterflies were laying eggs everywhere on those trees in 1957 people thought they were extinct and in 1978 they reappeared again. This suggested that by laying eggs everywhere they can survive. Hence, planting more of those trees for them to spread their eggs and increase likelihood to survive.
sorry but i don't think that's what they meant. if they where laying eggs everywhere on those trees then that suggests that in 1957 there was a lot of those trees and despite this they still got extinct. hence trees where not the problem
why dont we all just get over q14 for now and wait till someone gets the assessment report and tells us what the answer is! lol
this debate can go on forevvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
-
I think B is correct. The question states something like butterflies were laying eggs everywhere on those trees in 1957 people thought they were extinct and in 1978 they reappeared again. This suggested that by laying eggs everywhere they can survive. Hence, planting more of those trees for them to spread their eggs and increase likelihood to survive.
sorry but i don't think that's what they meant. if they where laying eggs everywhere on those trees then that suggests that in 1957 there was a lot of those trees and despite this they still got extinct. hence trees where not the problem
why dont we all just get over q14 for now and wait till someone gets the assessment report and tells us what the answer is! lol
this debate can go on forevvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Exactly. I gave up when I realised I could produce counter-arguments for basically every counter-argument I had. It's going to go in circles because each side has legit points depending on their interpretation of the scenario.
-
Oh my god we are not arguing about the Eltham butterfly populations again D:
-
wasn't the butterfly q A since they wanted to prevent extinction and they outlined that the butterfly populations where scattered thus no gene flow. So by putting them together, it allows for greater genetic diversity and therefore allow gene flow and prevent extinction.
also 23 was A because natural selection is unlikely to change the allele frequencies so dramatically in 3 generations. It takes much longer and it clearly emphasizes that a 'small' therefore genetic drift acted upon the population hence it was A not B.
Also 25 was B not D.
I got A also... and agree fully with this explanation... by placing all the butterflies in a single location where they are able to interbreed, the gene pool of this population would be much larger than the gene pools of the small isolated populations and hence greater genetic and phenotypic variation will result. this increased phenotypic variation will give the species of butterfly a better chance of survival
if you think about it the way VCAA is likely to, this would probably be the correct answer as they always liken preventing extiction to increasing genetic diversity (eg the qs later on in the paper about increasing genetic diversity in that near extinct species- cant remember which one)
-
Allllright, time to leave the thread again!
-
I think B is correct. The question states something like butterflies were laying eggs everywhere on those trees in 1957 people thought they were extinct and in 1978 they reappeared again. This suggested that by laying eggs everywhere they can survive. Hence, planting more of those trees for them to spread their eggs and increase likelihood to survive.
sorry but i don't think that's what they meant. if they where laying eggs everywhere on those trees then that suggests that in 1957 there was a lot of those trees and despite this they still got extinct. hence trees where not the problem
Because it takes a while for the eggs to develop a new population? They will think its extinct if theres like 100 butterflies in the area you will need like 1000's for it to be noticeable. How often do you see a butterfly?
-
But how does one seriously move all butterflies into one population?
Give 50,000 convicts nets?
That's how the British moved all the Aboriginals to isolation camps?
On a more serious note, as I said in another thread, stripping the eggs off the shrubs would work.
-
guys just give up. theres no point. i doubt they will award 2 answers for this question. everyone has their own opinion. when the results do come out some will win and some will lose, thats how it all is. u cant change anything now. so just think about ur next exam, especially mavis:P go do yr 12!
-
guys just give up. theres no point. i doubt they will award 2 answers for this question. everyone has their own opinion. when the results do come out some will win and some will lose, thats how it all is. u cant change anything now. so just think about ur next exam, especially mavis:P go do yr 12!
+1
-
for a bit of a mix up, why cant C be right?
-
for a bit of a mix up, why cant C be right?
LOL, made my day
(not cuz i think its stupid or anything but just to confuse ppl more :P )
-
for a bit of a mix up, why cant C be right?
cuz ull burn everything up as well like the beneficial plants
-
lol
anyway guys, stress less..
majority of state got raped by multi choice. My best friend who got 71/75 on mid year got 18/25 on MC according to what he thinks are the answers.
Anyone who got 20+ is doing excellent
and plus, there were plenty of redeemers on the SA (if you had time to finish... lol)
-
guys just give up. theres no point. i doubt they will award 2 answers for this question. everyone has their own opinion. when the results do come out some will win and some will lose, thats how it all is. u cant change anything now. so just think about ur next exam, especially mavis:P go do yr 12!
+1
+2 not this again!
+3
ONLY, I don't wanna study :(
-
man, I suck a bio. 51 total -goes to die-
-
Oh my god we are not arguing about the Eltham butterfly populations again D:
It's DEFINATELY A.
only kidding.
-
what marks will make up what grades?
estimations?
A+?
A?
B+?
B?
C+?
C?
-
"b The chemical code on the probe is the same as a sequence on the chemical code of the allele."
I just wanted to ask, I reread the wording but I find this question to be ambiguous also (surprise surprise).
Should it not be 'The chemical code on the probe is COMPLEMENTARY to the chemical code of the allele'?
Discuss.
-
Oh my god we are not arguing about the Eltham butterfly populations again D:
It's DEFINATELY A.
only kidding.
+1 Clearly A
-
Oh no, that's cool, I was just wondering because the wording of the question is still ultimately vague!
-
Oh no, that's cool, I was just wondering because the wording of the question is still ultimately vague!
So unbelievably vague
-
q 3 c is a bit iffy. the way they ask you to circle and justify your choice seems to me like they can award you either mark depending on which graph you talk about. I chose one gene and related my justification to the vaspa plant which shows little variation in height,, not producing the bell curve required of continuos variation. Clearly Vaspa does not show continuos variation. But it's weird because the q asks for the general pea plant population and you can't make a definite choice because the graphs contradict each-other. FUCK VCAA
-
q 3 c is a bit iffy. the way they ask you to circle and justify your choice seems to me like they can award you either mark depending on which graph you talk about. I chose one gene and related my justification to the vaspa plant which shows little variation in height,, not producing the bell curve required of continuos variation. Clearly Vaspa does not show continuos variation. But it's weird because the q asks for the general pea plant population and you can't make a definite choice because the graphs contradict each-other. FUCK VCAA
haha yeh i know fucking dog of a qs, but i think bc the X-axis variation is over 10cm or something they gonna say it has to be polygenes...could be wrong tho..
-
noo way sif. that is def polygenic inheritance. height = polygenic straight away. its like human height . i doubt there is much difference
-
q 3 c is a bit iffy. the way they ask you to circle and justify your choice seems to me like they can award you either mark depending on which graph you talk about. I chose one gene and related my justification to the vaspa plant which shows little variation in height,, not producing the bell curve required of continuos variation. Clearly Vaspa does not show continuos variation. But it's weird because the q asks for the general pea plant population and you can't make a definite choice because the graphs contradict each-other. FUCK VCAA
haha yeh i know fucking dog of a qs, but i think bc the X-axis variation is over 10cm or something they gonna say it has to be polygenes...could be wrong tho..
I chose one gene and my explanation was the vaspa graph had discontinuous variation. Is there the slightest of chances this is right?
I can see why people are saying its polygenes looking back on the graph and the x axis.
-
q 3 c is a bit iffy. the way they ask you to circle and justify your choice seems to me like they can award you either mark depending on which graph you talk about. I chose one gene and related my justification to the vaspa plant which shows little variation in height,, not producing the bell curve required of continuos variation. Clearly Vaspa does not show continuos variation. But it's weird because the q asks for the general pea plant population and you can't make a definite choice because the graphs contradict each-other. FUCK VCAA
haha yeh i know fucking dog of a qs, but i think bc the X-axis variation is over 10cm or something they gonna say it has to be polygenes...could be wrong tho..
As mentioned before, there's no bell curve because each marker on the X-axis is a RANGE. If they plotted the X-axis continuously, judging by what's already turned out even by arranging categorically, it'll definitely come out as a continuous normal distribution. Marks are almost certainly only going to be given if you said it's polygenic.
-
q 3 c is a bit iffy. the way they ask you to circle and justify your choice seems to me like they can award you either mark depending on which graph you talk about. I chose one gene and related my justification to the vaspa plant which shows little variation in height,, not producing the bell curve required of continuos variation. Clearly Vaspa does not show continuos variation. But it's weird because the q asks for the general pea plant population and you can't make a definite choice because the graphs contradict each-other. FUCK VCAA
haha yeh i know fucking dog of a qs, but i think bc the X-axis variation is over 10cm or something they gonna say it has to be polygenes...could be wrong tho..
As mentioned before, there's no bell curve because each marker on the X-axis is a RANGE. If they plotted the X-axis continuously, judging by what's already turned out even by arranging categorically, it'll definitely come out as a continuous normal distribution. Marks are almost certainly only going to be given if you said it's polygenic.
Alright, thanks.
-
fair enough
-
How good would it be if your teacher told you were 8th in SAC's today...
Was aiming 45+.
Will still happennnnn if your exam marks are good enough.
SACs are a load of crap.
-
dw about sacs as long as you gun the exam. how well did you go mid years/
-
14 answer is B has been confirmed by the VCE senior biology teacher of Ivanhoe Girls College
-
I have asked a girl to confirm as the biology assessors are at Ivanhoe
-
I did bio last year, so i don't remember everything that well
but for Q14:
Although there is no indication that there is a lack of bushes, more bushes will just improve their chance of reproducing, and therefore will definitely increase their numbers. Regardless of how diverse the gene pool is, the population WILL be larger and therefore extinction WILL have a better chance of being avoided.
By gathering them together, you have to start asking a lot of questions about the implications of that. Since 1938 there could have been very little change in the gene pools of each population (since when you put it in perspective, 60 years may not be enough for natural selection to take place to a significant extent unless there was a lot of selective pressure, and you can't assume that). Therefore by combining the populations, what are you doing? POSSIBLY not increasing diversity, as the gene pool from each population could be the same, or POSSIBLY increasing diversity as the gene pool from each population could be different. But you just don't know. There's not enough information to assume option A will be beneficial.
It could actually be detrimental, as there is now only one population, and if that population doesn't strive, bye bye copper butterflies. If one population doesn't strive and dies as it is now, it doesn't matter because there are still other populations.
-
dont worry andrew, you're obviously quite a good student and i just assume you're in a strong cohort.
I'm in a similar posistion, after our eight SAC's i am about 5th-6th, however i think on this end year when our teacher went over some questions in class i probably did the best in our class. and my class is pretty strong with on the midyear 8 A+'s and 10 A's.
So i still have hope for a 45
-
i dont remember the mcq questions. can someone post a link where i can see the actual exam
-
i dont remember the mcq questions. can someone post a link where i can see the actual exam
It's in the quote box in the first post of this thread.
-
Aw so you think it's definitely B? What bout the other ones that we weren't sure about? :P
-
edit
-
The idiot that argued it was A is very poor in analysing the information in the question provided you are able to think clearly at home and not in exam condition. I wonder your score /75, seriously.
get a fuckin life retard don't call me an idiot who said B is right anyway? some teacher? and? even if it is don't go calling people retards you fuckin turd... learn to argue without being arrogant and i hope you fail at life
-
Dude your the one who was being arrogant about your intelligence assuring no doubt that it is A. If your not 'sure' then don't say you are 'sure' express it as an opinion and not a fact.
-
Dude your the one who was being arrogant about your intelligence assuring no doubt that it is A. If your not 'sure' then don't say you are 'sure' express it as an opinion and not a fact.
being arrogant about my intelligence? because i was arguing why i chose A and why 'i' think it's A? are you normal in head?? and i never expressed it as a SURE THING U FUCK i expressed it in as OPINION anyone with half a brain would know i was not saying im sure because last time i checked examiners dont do the exam now do they. USE YOUR HEAD YOU HALF BRAINED MAGGOT and oh... if it is or isn't A i don't care cause matter of fact is it's 1 mark and i'm not gona kill myself over it. seems like you are thought.. not sure but someone needs a life outside butterflies
-
Guys, we'll just have to wait and see....
Ps. i think it's A :P
-
The idiot that argued it was A is very poor in analysing the information in the question provided you are able to think clearly at home and not in exam condition. I wonder your score /75, seriously.
no need to call someone idiot and attack them over a biology question. A lot of people argued its A , and they had reason to ...
-
mmm our teacher who is an exam marker (not sure if that has anything to do with anything at the moment) said B was the only logical option for that question...
-
The idiot that argued it was A is very poor in analysing the information in the question provided you are able to think clearly at home and not in exam condition. I wonder your score /75, seriously.
no need to call someone idiot and attack them over a biology question. A lot of people argued its A , and they had reason to ...
I argued it was A, and on the midyear I got 70/75.
So, cool. Hf with bitchin'.
-
what about 3 with meiosis in females ?
are we confirming that is B ?
-
bloody hell, i know this is a hypothetical question but still, the biology exam was not written in fairytopia for christ's sake, they take into account practicality in their answers.
A is simply impossible to execute and therefore is not correct, seriosuly, its quite funny that people selected it, how the hell is it possible? if you notice the VCAA amrking trends in pervious years trial examss multiuple choice sections, you will notice that impracticality it one factor used to deem an answer incorrect - if two answers (A and B) sound correct, and one had to be "better" than the other - it would be the one that is POSSIBLE in the first place
-
bloody hell, i know this is a hypothetical question but still, the biology exam was not written in fairytopia for christ's sake, they take into account practicality in their answers.
A is simply impossible to execute and therefore is not correct, seriosuly, its quite funny that people selected it, how the hell is it possible? if you notice the VCAA amrking trends in pervious years trial examss multiuple choice sections, you will notice that impracticality it one factor used to deem an answer incorrect - if two answers (A and B) sound correct, and one had to be "better" than the other - it would be the one that is POSSIBLE in the first place
in regards to your claim that it's impossible, look at the 2008 unit 3 q25 biol exam. how does stocking the pool with fish that eat mosquito larvae seem possible?
-
bloody hell, i know this is a hypothetical question but still, the biology exam was not written in fairytopia for christ's sake, they take into account practicality in their answers.
A is simply impossible to execute and therefore is not correct, seriosuly, its quite funny that people selected it, how the hell is it possible? if you notice the VCAA amrking trends in pervious years trial examss multiuple choice sections, you will notice that impracticality it one factor used to deem an answer incorrect - if two answers (A and B) sound correct, and one had to be "better" than the other - it would be the one that is POSSIBLE in the first place
in regards to your claim that it's impossible, look at the 2008 unit 3 q25 biol exam. how does stocking the pool with fish that eat mosquito larvae seem possible?
fish are much bigger and easy to get
-
ill try again
what about 3 with meiosis in females ?
are we confirming that is B ?
XD
-
ill try again
what about 3 with meiosis in females ?
are we confirming that is B ?
XD
Yeah it's definitely B because females don't actually produce 4 gametes but 3 polar bodies and an ovum instead and the other options are just plain wrong.
-
hm kay. well with that i will say 21/25 for MC so not too bad.
-
kenhung123 fails
-
kenhung123 fails
LOL
I had a dream about him...
ROOFL, thats peculiar ..
-
kenhung123 fails
LOL
I had a dream about him...
ROOFL, thats peculiar ..
I honestly woke up thinking he was a girl... even after talking to kenhung on msn with microphone...
God my mind plays tricks on me!
Hahahahaha, that makes it even more weird! But what an interesting dream to have eh.
-
What a strange dream to have. I hope I can stop dreaming about Bio now and erase it out of my memory until I pick it up again in Uni lol
lol mandy I'm doing methods next year, but thanks anyway ;)
-
What a strange dream to have. I hope I can stop dreaming about Bio now and erase it out of my memory until I pick it up again in Uni lol
lol mandy I'm doing methods next year, but thanks anyway ;)
Hahaha, I've never dreamt about Biol and I'm glad.
@minilunchbox, oops ;]
-
i feel like killing biol after my performance on monday!
-
Yeah gl with methods next year guys.
B+? D:
-
N, it was easy.
And that meant everyone did really well, and you make heaps of stupid mistakes.
-
I made a few stupid mistakes on the methods exam, gah rofl
-
you amaze me soulbyhezzzy
-
would anyone have the actual exam on them? eg a photocopy etc?
THANK YOU! :smitten:
-
would anyone have the actual exam on them? eg a photocopy etc?
THANK YOU! :smitten:
There's a scanned copy in the quote box on the first post of this thread if that's what you're looking for. Unless you meant a physical copy.
-
14 answer is B has been confirmed by the VCE senior biology teacher of Ivanhoe Girls College
Thanks :). Aren't you a guy though??
HAHAHHAHAHHAHA
I have asked a girl to confirm as the biology assessors are at Ivanhoe
very reliable...
-
GO PARTY PEOPLE NOTHING MORE YOU CAN DO
-
14 answer is B has been confirmed by the VCE senior biology teacher of Ivanhoe Girls College
Thanks :). Aren't you a guy though??
HAHAHHAHAHHAHA
I have asked a girl to confirm as the biology assessors are at Ivanhoe
very reliable...
...N.
I go to Ivanhoe.
And there are two biology teaches; neither are 'assessors'.
My Biology teacher writes Checkpoints, that is all.
-
orite get over it fuck ivanhoe and fuck butterflies. i say close this thread it's served its purpose.
-
Yeah this is no longer about the butterflies it's just about me pwning.
-
Yeah this is no longer about the butterflies it's just about me pwning.
you pwning? oh cause your teacher writes checkpoints? FAR WATA SIK KENT MAN YOU'RE GONA GET 75/75 NO DOUBT ......
-
um clearly hard has served all of youse, coz he reasoned everythn to hard solid evidence,
dw hard, got ur bak homie, just give it HARD to them
-
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA
-
dude radical dudeeee
-
Yeah this is no longer about the butterflies it's just about me pwning.
you pwning? oh cause your teacher writes checkpoints? FAR WATA SIK KENT MAN YOU'RE GONA GET 75/75 NO DOUBT ......
Mavisgibbons is a girl :P.
What's with the spam, fayyad?
DONT TALK TO FAYYAD LIKE THAT HIS MY MAN
-
Yeah this is no longer about the butterflies it's just about me pwning.
you pwning? oh cause your teacher writes checkpoints? FAR WATA SIK KENT MAN YOU'RE GONA GET 75/75 NO DOUBT ......
What!? No lol.
He said I have assessors at my school. I do not have assessors at my school.
I know this because I go there.
-
thanks hard, i mean all that biol and legal tutoring u done me throughout the yr is just incredible, idk how im gna repay u, ur the BEST man.
p.s. i seriously dont know how those people can argue with a student that gets perfect scores and never got below 100 in a sac or exam, i mean its pretty obvious that HARD is toppin the state in biol, if not then somethn is wrong with the system.
-
anywayssssssssssssss gna go sleep now, gotta physics exam tomz, cya hard
tc garnier, lol
-
Fayyad = Hard?
+1
-
Fayyad = Hard?
nah get the mods to check it aint me dawg
-
14 answer is B has been confirmed by the VCE senior biology teacher of Ivanhoe Girls College
Thanks :). Aren't you a guy though??
HAHAHHAHAHHAHA
I have asked a girl to confirm as the biology assessors are at Ivanhoe
very reliable...
...N.
I go to Ivanhoe.
And there are two biology teaches; neither are 'assessors'.
My Biology teacher writes Checkpoints, that is all.
Note: 2nd comment i made was sarcastic, i apologize for any inconvience
-
Dw, they're not very reliable.
-
fayyad and hard are twins in everythn we are for better or worse THE BEST, get ur facts right no life NERDS
-
lol, jokes im a freak too with no life... hahaha
-
ay fayyad did you do your physics exam
-
everyone i have spoke to and is on the net all believe it was extremly long... i didnt think it was and that got me worried that i had missed half the exam! these answers have confirmed that i did complete the entire exam so thanks for posting the answers!
-
crazy shit man
-
lmaoo