Biology Exam: Answers and Discussion!

[Reus]

I don't think that they will give everyone a mark because it's in your textbook and, although not explicitly stated in the SD, the monomers of biomacromolecules are emphasised. I think our cohort was just unlikely because it looks like VCAA are stepping up their game 

What burns more is that I know how to draw it cause of chemistry but I didn't identify it

[heymanhru]

What were some other peoples answers for SA Question 12 Part B ii? 

I said something along the lines of one dying out and another surviving in flashy bio terms, I've already forget most of what I wrote lol.

Edit:
This is the answer according to scooby:
ii)
•   Major environmental changes occurred
•   M. primigenius was unable to adapt to these changes and extinction occurred
•   E. maximus was able to adapt this change, possibly because of a greater genetic diversity than M. primigenius

[vox nihili]

Some of the questions over the last two years have been challenging, and I know a lot of you are disappointed with the exam, but it will actually help you more in the future. Both exams have been a lot less vague and have actually presented biology as a more serious science. They've also got students thinking a lot more.

To me, they've felt a lot more like uni biology than VCE biology, which is definitely a good thing. VCE biol used to feel like the "other science". It's kind of nice that that's changed a little bit for you guys. It should also, hopefully, make exams a little more straight forward.

[skybluemaniac]

The question specifically referred to founder effect, which is caused by migration.

Overall I found the exam pretty good. MC was very easy (I hope, or else I'm absolutely screwed) and whilst a few short answer questions threw me off (how da fuck do you draw an amino acid) it wasn't too bad.

infecthead. I have the multi choice scan up and the question does not mention founder effect at all. it simply says it shows the changes in allele frequencies over two generations. so I have no idea what the answer is...somebody help!

[someone011]

What were some other peoples answers for SA Question 12 Part B ii? 

I said humans wanted the woolly mammoth's fur/wool (which elephants don't have), and so they hunted all of them down until they became extinct. Better than nothing!

[someone011]

infecthead. I have the multi choice scan up and the question does not mention founder effect at all. it simply says it shows the changes in allele frequencies over two generations. so I have no idea what the answer is...somebody help!

"If the diagram above models the founder effect"

[katiesaliba]

What burns more is that I know how to draw it cause of chemistry but I didn't identify it

At least you'll know for chem then  But I totally understand 

[skybluemaniac]

"If the diagram above models the founder effect"

Bottleneck effect is a form of founder effect though! I mean it's not conincidence that the smaller population only had one type of genotype. my thought process was that that genotype was able to survive the natural disaster hence there only being one genotype..

[vox nihili]

Bottleneck effect is a form of founder effect though! I mean it's not conincidence that the smaller population only had one type of genotype. my thought process was that that genotype was able to survive the natural disaster hence there only being one genotype..

They're distinct. Functionally, they do the same thing, but they are distinct. Founder effect is the result of migration, whereas bottleneck is the result of a mass death (naturally induced or human induced)

[shivaji]

They're distinct. Functionally, they do the same thing, but they are distinct. Founder effect is the result of migration, whereas bottleneck is the result of a mass death (naturally induced or human induced)

i thought when i did the paper that migration meant when members of a population bred with another, whilst founder effect was members colonising a new area, so thought migration didn't refer to founder ... oh well guess i know what migration actually means now

[vox nihili]

i thought when i did the paper that migration meant when members of a population bred with another, whilst founder effect was members colonising a new area, so thought migration didn't refer to founder ... oh well guess i know what migration actually means now

That's gene flow, but is the result of migration between populations.

[skybluemaniac]

They're distinct. Functionally, they do the same thing, but they are distinct. Founder effect is the result of migration, whereas bottleneck is the result of a mass death (naturally induced or human induced)

mmm i don't know..that's what our teacher taught us. She reckons the answer is bottleneck (natural disaster). I mean why else would the new population conincidently only have the homozygous recessive genotype. It's not like they somehow all migrated and didn't let anyone else go with a different genotype. Wikepedia says that the bottleneck can cause the founder effect even though it's not strictly a new population

[vox nihili]

mmm i don't know..that's what our teacher taught us. She reckons the answer is bottleneck (natural disaster). I mean why else would the new population conincidently only have the homozygous recessive genotype. It's not like they somehow all migrated and didn't let anyone else go with a different genotype. Wikepedia says that the bottleneck can cause the founder effect even though it's not strictly a new population

I'm still sticking with migration. Founder effect is about establishing a new population, not about a bottleneck. It all comes down to semantics, but I think Wikipedia might have it wrong there.

It is possible that they didn't let anyone else go with a different genotype. What if the homozygous recessive conferred a greater capacity to travel (better stamina, more developed hippocampus etc)? Then those without the genotype may very well be excluded.

[vor0005]

Yeah I second Migration. While a natural disaster may(read below) relate to a bottleneck (as depicted in the diagram), the question asks you to relate to the Founder effect. The definition of founder effect is: The colonization of an area by a limited number of individuals from a parent population, that is not representative of the original population. Colonization is synonymous with migration and that's why 'A' is most likely correct.

Also, a natural disaster doesn't always result in a bottle neck. Only if the population is reduced by a substantial amount (generally over 50%) such that the resultant population is no longer a representative of the original population. Not to mention, it's impossible to guarantee that it was a natural disaster; could be disease or several other causes. Regardless, none of these reasons relate to the Founder effect.

just a quick thought: would an outbreak of a disease be considered a natural disaster? If so, then disease would be a bad example. Maybe humans hunted only a specific type of one animal; lets say a male elephant for his tusks. Pretty confident that wouldn't be considered a natural disaster lol

[someone011]

It is possible that they didn't let anyone else go with a different genotype. What if the homozygous recessive conferred a greater capacity to travel (better stamina, more developed hippocampus etc)? Then those without the genotype may very well be excluded.

Yeah, anything can happen by chance