.

[Studyinghard]

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?

[simpak]

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!?

[Studyinghard]

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

[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)

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....

[simpak]

>.<
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

[Studyinghard]

idk abt anyone else but im loving this aha. this is quite intense. whose right and whose wrong! XD

[Studyinghard]

>.<
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

[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.

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.

[Studyinghard]

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)

[shinny]

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.

[simpak]

B doesn't?  Only moving the butterflies into the one area would definitely increase the genetic variation y?

[Studyinghard]

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

[qshyrn]

fk i think it might be A now

[classy1112]

is anyone workin on a full set of solutions?

[mandy]

is anyone workin on a full set of solutions?

andrewloppol did in that other thread.