General Thoughts: Biology (1 Viewer)

[musicana]

BIOTECH 7 MARKER: so so unclear, the wording didn't even allude the relevance of mutations of DNA sequencing to functioning of Enzymes. UGH I HATE BOS. Horrible Horrible Exam :'((((

 

[musicana]

WORST EXAM EVER. It was so unclear, etc
#creysforever

 

[miss_forgettful]

I talked about how by developing an antibiotic this meant that people could recover more quickly, generally without hospital treatment. This reduces the strain on hospitals who are then better able to take care of other patients. It also reduces the amount of time people take off work, which thereby helps the economy. As the antibiotic allowed the disease to be controlled it meant that it didn't become an epidemic which could affect trade and tourism, also harming the economy. Thus it helped improve the functioning of a society by maintaining a higher level of health.

I also looked at the advances in transgenic species, particularly golden rice. Golden rice has the gene to produce high amounts of vitamin C and can be planted in third world countries where the diet mainly consists of rice and there is a high prevalence of scurvy due to lack of vitamin C. The increase of golden rice in their diets then improves the health of individuals and thereby the society as a whole, allowing it to function better.

Etceteraaa

Wait, what? I thought implications on society meant consequences and issues such as resistance, etc?

 

[SpreadTheWord]

Ok so for all the people who haven't read through this forum and realised that pretty much EVERY question that people aren't sure of has been discussed and solved (except the punctuated equilibrium because there's still debate about that), here's a summary of the main issues and their solutions (not just what i think but the conclusions that we've come to) and if anyone asks about them again i'm going to kill someone.

1) B because this is true (basic year 9-11 evolution) and D is NOT because the same chemical components can and do form different proteins depending on the needs of the
organism.


2) C - read your text book, it's about how substances are carried in the blood, this is directly from the syllabus

3) B - one of the very first dot points of MaB. C and D are automatically wrong by saying this is unnecessary and A is true but B explains WHY, so it is more correct which is what the BoS says is required for MC

4) C - it is the chemical components of a CHROMOSOME not DNA (A is simply the components of DNA), as a chromosome also has histone, a protein. This is again straight from the syllabus

5) B - basic Punnett square will show this

6) D - A was Ronald Ross, B was Louis Pasteur, C was Koch - even if you hadn't looked at Burnet you could have figured this out by a process of deduction

7) B - basic SFBH dot point

8) B AND D - the board is investigating this - aka they're gonna allow both probably. POST ABOUT THIS AND YOU DIE.

9) C - check the textbook

10) D - A, cloning doesn't increase variation; B, no crossing over in asexual reproduction; C, no such thing as spontaneous generation

11) A - this is from the 'source to sink' theory, so check your textbook if you don't remember it

12) B - this was explored in adaptations to reduce water loss etc

13) A - not even going to explain...

14) B - A, C and D refer to the second and third line of defence, however cilia and the mucous membranes are designed to stop pathogens even entering the body at all, thus must be B (refer to textbook)

15) B - It does not talk about genetics thus not A; not about fossils so not C; not about embryos so not D; biogeography explains this as these organisms are part of divergent evolution

16) A - cbf to explain, check SFBH, it's straight from the syllabus

17) D - since there are 3 phenotypes this must be an example of codominance, as the heterzygous form is a mixture of both A and B, with no specific dominance. As 1 and 2 have the same phenotype and they produce three different phenotypes, they must BOTH have the heterozygous genotype AB, thus the answer is D

18) A - 1 is an artery as it has thick, muscular walls and 4 is a vein as it has valves to prevent backflow - combining these it must be A

19) A - Malaria is caused by a protozoan NOT bacteria and antibiotics only kill bacteria

20) A or C - still fierce debate about this


Also, the question labelling X and Y - X is a thermal probe and Y is a data logger. Yes, there are also many of us who haven't heard of a data logger before.


If you have any queries about what i've posted then ask (after you've checked your textbook please!), but this is just to stop people constantly saying WHAT'S THIS?? when they haven't been bothered to read through and see that it's been answered. Hope this helped!

I believe 3 is A. Yes B can also be right, but it's too specific. What's a specific temperature, 5oC or 37oC? -see there are some discrepencies. 45oC is a specific temperature, but they then begin to denuture or whatever.

It doesn't matter whether the organism is an ectotherm or endotherm, each needs a constant body temperature to survive - thus that is why they bask in sun, and find shelter. See, this is what is wrong with the test, instead of testing your knowledge it is trying to make you get it wrong, by putting 2 correct answers theoretically.

 

[bigbirdbanana]

I believe 3 is A. Yes B can also be right, but it's too specific. What's a specific temperature, 5oC or 37oC? -see there are some discrepencies. 45oC is a specific temperature, but they then begin to denuture or whatever.

It doesn't matter whether the organism is an ectotherm or endotherm, each needs a constant body temperature to survive - thus that is why they bask in sun, and find shelter. See, this is what is wrong with the test, instead of testing your knowledge it is trying to make you get it wrong, by putting 2 correct answers theoretically.

The idea with multiple choice is to pick the MOST correct answer. The whole reason organisms need to keep a constant internal environment is so that they can function properly. Proper functioning requires full metabolic functioning. Metabolic reactions are catalysed by enzymes. Enzymes function best at specific temperatures. Thus whilst A is correct, B is MORE correct, which is what they always want.

Also it says specific temperatureS, plural, indicating that yes, different enzymes function best at different temperatures. Yes, that's why you need to keep it constant so your body doesn't get to 45 and cause enzymes to denature.

Yes, but pretty much every multiple choice quiz will do that, 2 are completely wrong, 1 which could be the right answer or is close to it, then 1 which contains more detail and is correct. They want to see if you can analyse these discrepencies.

Hope that helped! Also, sorry if my tone seems kinda horrible tonight, i'm just in an awful mood

 

[Riproot]

Wait, what? I thought implications on society meant consequences and issues such as resistance, etc?

Positive and negative affects on society such as prolonged life, improved health, etc.

I believe 3 is A. Yes B can also be right, but it's too specific. What's a specific temperature, 5oC or 37oC? -see there are some discrepencies. 45oC is a specific temperature, but they then begin to denuture or whatever.
It doesn't matter whether the organism is an ectotherm or endotherm, each needs a constant body temperature to survive - thus that is why they bask in sun, and find shelter. See, this is what is wrong with the test, instead of testing your knowledge it is trying to make you get it wrong, by putting 2 correct answers theoretically.

You believe wrong. A isn't specific enough. They need to be kept at a specific temperature, such as 37 in dome organisms and 5 in others. Your reasoning is flawed. denature*
Yes, but why is this body temperature needed? Because enzymes need specific temperatures to work and hence keep up the metabolism of the organism and help them survive.
No. It's testing whether you have logical reasoning (as is the point of every science/maths subject), biology has just had less of an emphasis on this in the past exams.
Also, if you had the correct knowledge, you would've known it was B from the dot point that said something like "Enzymes need specific conditions to function such as temperature..." there are like 3 dot points and a prac on it.

 

[-Jonny]

are we sure (1) is B?

It's prelim knowledge that life basically evolved from cyanobacteria....

 

[-Jonny]

Wait, what? I thought implications on society meant consequences and issues such as resistance, etc?

It can mean either. You didn't have to state ALL the implications.
I wrote about different advancements for each core topic with positive impacts, then fused them to explain the fungi mentioned had the potential to mutate and attack human enzymes due to the close amino acid sequencing.....

 

[-Jonny]

Positive and negative affects on society such as prolonged life, improved health, etc.

You believe wrong. A isn't specific enough. They need to be kept at a specific temperature, such as 37 in dome organisms and 5 in others. Your reasoning is flawed. denature*
Yes, but why is this body temperature needed? Because enzymes need specific temperatures to work and hence keep up the metabolism of the organism and help them survive.
No. It's testing whether you have logical reasoning (as is the point of every science/maths subject), biology has just had less of an emphasis on this in the past exams.
Also, if you had the correct knowledge, you would've known it was B from the dot point that said something like "Enzymes need specific conditions to function such as temperature..." there are like 3 dot points and a prac on it.

I almost put in C or D for this question because it said organisms, without specifying endotherms or ectotherms and stuff... But I picked B, it makes the most sense.

 

[Some Vunt]

I almost put in C or D for this question because it said organisms, without specifying endotherms or ectotherms and stuff... But I picked B, it makes the most sense.

Ectotherms still need to maintain a constant internal metabolism, they just do it by going into the sun or shade.

 

[packwolf]

I still believe 20 is C. My teacher said he would send me the official answers when he starts marking early this week. He also said he may be able to send marking criteria for short response if its not too red hot

 

[Dylanamali]

I still believe 20 is C. My teacher said he would send me the official answers when he starts marking early this week. He also said he may be able to send marking criteria for short response if its not too red hot

NICE, i'd def rep! if you post the marking criteria =)

 

[Some Vunt]

NICE, i'd def rep! if you post the marking criteria =)

This.
I'm gonna have nothing better to do with my life. :/

 

[jkli]

approx 17/20 for mc. alright seeing i thought i failed haha, still sucks when you realise all the mistakes where really stupid ones

 

[Midnight_Lotus]

But there ARE transitional fossil forms that have been found apart from the usual archeopteryx and crossopterygian, we have the COMPLETE fossil record of the horse, including its transitional forms. This in itself supprts punctuated equilibrium.

This would support gradualism not punctuated equilibrium. If it were the later then the fossils found would all have to be dated within a couple thousand years of each other, which if this were the case the likelihood of us finding them is extremely rare as the few that existed would have decomposed. (As the theory suggests)

To clarify for people, punctuated equilibrium cannot be proven with fossils as the whole concept of punctuated equilibrium suggests that there would not be any fossil evidence (they would have all decomposed), transitional fossils only support gradualism.

In conclusion the only way punctuated equilibrium can be proven is through a lack of transitional fossils

 

[Some Vunt]

This would support gradualism not punctuated equilibrium. If it were the later then the fossils found would all have to be dated within a couple thousand years of each other, which if this were the case the likelihood of us finding them is extremely rare as the few that existed would have decomposed. (As the theory suggests)
To clarify for people, punctuated equilibrium cannot be proven with fossils as the whole concept of punctuated equilibrium suggests that there would not be any fossil evidence (they would have all decomposed), transitional fossils only support gradualism.

In conclusion the only way punctuated equilibrium can be proven is through a lack of transitional fossils

But simple science shows us that a theory can only be supported by evidence not a lack of it.

 

[Midnight_Lotus]

But simple science shows us that a theory can only be supported by evidence not a lack of it.

Ergo the theory in itself is flawed.
However if transitional fossils never existed then the theory isn't lacking evidence but gradualism is making "transitional" fossils.
The theory was originally produced as a response to the apparent lack of transitional fossils, not because there was lots of fossils showing rapid change.

 

[Some Vunt]

Ergo the theory in itself is flawed.
However if transitional fossils never existed then the theory isn't lacking evidence but gradualism is making "transitional" fossils.
The theory was originally produced as a response to the apparent lack of transitional fossils, not because there was lots of fossils showing rapid change.

I don't know what you're saying in that second sentence. What's your point?
Yes, but it's not "proof" of the theory it is only the basis of the theory, and there are lots of transitional fossils now and there is fossil evidence of rapid change in evolution and shit.

 

[Midnight_Lotus]

I don't know what you're saying in that second sentence. What's your point?
Yes, but it's not "proof" of the theory it is only the basis of the theory, and there are lots of transitional fossils now and there is fossil evidence of rapid change in evolution and shit.

I don't want to get in a lengthy debate about it (not in this thread anyway), but there is actually a surprisingly small amount of what we would call transitional fossils. According to gradualism we should be finding thousands of them (yet there are quite few - which is why the idea of punctuated equilibrium was put forward - and some of the ones we discover are being disproven such as the archaeopteryx as the most recent example). Also, all of the fossils show an organism that is fully-formed or complete (they aren't lesser or more simplistic as what would be expected when we look back thorugh the "evolutionary tree")

"and there is fossil evidence of rapid change in evolution and shit"
Actually there is no fossil evidence of rapid change, all transitional fossils currently supported show gradual change over millions not thousands of years

 

[TorMental]

You guys still going on about bio? Lol, jebus. That was like 2 days ago guys, chill.