.

[qshyrn]

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

[qshyrn]

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

[argentum]

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?

[cochra]

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.

[Studyinghard]

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

[simpak]

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

[qshyrn]

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

[cochra]

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.

[simpak]

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.

[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.

[argentum]

Also, with question 20... I thought it was D.... >_<

[Studyinghard]

for SA 3 ii) could temperature be there? or is that borderline? cuz higher temperature means drier climates and so on

[simpak]

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.

[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?

[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.

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.