.

[shea43]

Oh my god we are not arguing about the Eltham butterfly populations again D:

It's DEFINATELY A.














only kidding.

+1 Clearly A

[simpak]

Oh no, that's cool, I was just wondering because the wording of the question is still ultimately vague!

[shea43]

Oh no, that's cool, I was just wondering because the wording of the question is still ultimately vague!

So unbelievably vague

[hard]

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

[silva]

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..

[Studyinghard]

noo way sif. that is def polygenic inheritance. height = polygenic straight away. its like human height . i doubt there is much difference

[LFTM]

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. 

[shinny]

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.

[LFTM]

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.

[hard]

fair enough

[simpak]

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.

[hard]

dw about sacs as long as you gun the exam. how well did you go mid years/

[kenhung123]

14 answer is B has been confirmed by the VCE senior biology teacher of Ivanhoe Girls College

[kenhung123]

I have asked a girl to confirm as the biology assessors are at Ivanhoe

[homghomg1]

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.