.

[Studyinghard]

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

[simpak]

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.

[Studyinghard]

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"

[minilunchbox]

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.

[simpak]

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.

[Studyinghard]

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

[ieguya]

short answer questions .\---> answers??

[fdsfsgdfgdf]

anyways the question asks how this species can escape EXCTINCTION   :angel:

[simpak]

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

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.

[qshyrn]

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!!!!

[Studyinghard]

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

[simpak]

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.

[Studyinghard]

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

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!

[Studyinghard]

loll im going crazy here.but so far think ive lost about 7 marks upto question 5. looking better than i thought XD

[qshyrn]

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)