After the EXAM (feedback)

[NE2000]

oh man, i said something about being differences in interpretation of fossils.. oh i royally f'd up this exam

Yeah...i hope they're not tight...i think it might work with sand- i've seen some examples where there was random sand in the diagram..
that's what i said lol

Also...for the question on cactus I said that they aren't rapidly buried with sediment and it's a warm climate hence they decompose quickly. Do you think that'll be right??

It's amazing, I studied 4 times more for this exam than the last one but I came out 4 times feeling worse...

I said cos they are "fleshy"- soft things don't fossilise as well?
That is, if fleshy means soft

Oh yeah, that would have probably been a better explanation, but the examiners would have to be really tight if they don't accept the fact that they weren't rapidly buried in sediment (although I was thinking whether sand would work or not...)

I hope they're not tight this year....i think it would work for sand- i've seem some diagrams with random sand in the middle..

Oh....there goes another one then....

[bucket]

If the virus was used as a vector, it could have caused a disease resulting in death?
This was ANOTHER hard one =_=

[username]

If the virus was used as a vector, it could have caused a disease resulting in death?
This was ANOTHER hard one =_=

Not if it's infective material and stuff were taken out first.

[Ekky]

If the virus was used as a vector, it could have caused a disease resulting in death?
This was ANOTHER hard one =_=

Yes! i had thought of that too...like if they made a mistake and didn't take out the disease causing part of it..

[NE2000]

The true reason I think was that there was an unexpected rapid immune response to the virus. However, I do not think they would want us to know that. I put something random about the gene becoming integrated in between an existing gene and possibly causing that vital gene to lose function. It's not correct, I don't know whether it'll hold with them...

[Ekky]

The true reason I think was that there was an unexpected rapid immune response to the virus. However, I do not think they would want us to know that. I put something random about the gene becoming integrated in between an existing gene and possibly causing that vital gene to lose function. It's not correct, I don't know whether it'll hold with them...

How would the immune system cause organ failure..?

[susien7]

maybe the immune disease, meant the body didn't recognise self as self.. and failed it.. lol

[Ekky]

maybe the immune disease, meant the body didn't recognise self as self.. and failed it.. lol

ah....but how would the virus cause that i wonder?

[chlloe]

I found it really easy!! Hopefully thats not a bad thing. Everything I crammed yesterday seemed to pop up in one way or another.

The M/C was SOOOOOO easy. Finished in like 15mins.

Short answer, a couple of tricky ones, but very easy I thought. Finished with 20 to go

What did everyone write for the 3 considerations for the experiement question about the bombs?

[susien7]

well thanks for freaking out all the people who thought it was hard!!

[Ekky]

well thanks for freaking out all the people who thought it was hard!!

ditto lol!

[lanvins]

i think ppl r just being padantic, it was a fairly easy exam in comparison to some trial exams.

[susien7]

or maybe people truthfully thought it was difficult and you're just a smarty pants!

[NE2000]

You basically had to state that the multiple translocations between different homologous pairs of chromosomes meant that any defective alleles would no longer be masked and would therefore be expressed in the phenotype, hence adversely affecting veteran X's health. As for his offspring - well, similar idea really.

That's interesting, not at all what I put. I thought the molecular basis of 'masking' dominant/recessive was basically that a recessive phenotype is based on little-no protein product and a dominant one is where within the heterozygote there is enough protein being produced. Hence if both alleles were present somewhere on the chromosomes it would still work as per normal (remember Robertsonian Down Syndrome). I said something about the translocation possibly breaking up genes and hence affecting the genotype and the phenotype. However I think the key-point was that there was exchange of genetic material between non-homologous chromosomes and the only process that could have caused this is mutation...

But anywayz...

[Ekky]

You basically had to state that the multiple translocations between different homologous pairs of chromosomes meant that any defective alleles would no longer be masked and would therefore be expressed in the phenotype, hence adversely affecting veteran X's health. As for his offspring - well, similar idea really.

That's interesting, not at all what I put. I thought the molecular basis of 'masking' dominant/recessive was basically that a recessive phenotype is based on little-no protein product and a dominant one is where within the heterozygote there is enough protein being produced. Hence if both alleles were present somewhere on the chromosomes it would still work as per normal (remember Robertsonian Down Syndrome). I said something about the translocation possibly breaking up genes and hence affecting the genotype and the phenotype. However I think the key-point was that there was exchange of genetic material between non-homologous chromosomes and the only process that could have caused this is mutation...

But anywayz...

Yes i put the breaking up of genes as well..