md2112 what was the explanation given for saying it's homo erectus? Denisovans makes the most sense imo because its the only ancestral species that shares DNA with Indigenous Australians, as said in the article in the question

    Christ Hi! Yes I understand the fact about the mRNA not containing introns, however if you read the entire sentence together "The insulin produced by recombinant DNA technology is produced from human insulin mRNA," though accurate is not as good as "The insulin produced by recombinant DNA technology is produced by a cloned human insulin gene."
    And the reason why C is a better answer is because the mRNA undergoes further processing as you mentioned to convert into into DNA, and hence its not actually the mRNA producing the insulin but rather the copy DNA produced by Reverse transcriptase (invertase in an enzyme that catalyses sugar btw). Thus C would be a better answer

        md2112 The explanation is that H. floresiensis had a much small stature and couldn't be the ancestor of the otherwise taller Indigenous Australians. H. densiova can't be because they share only a small percentage of DNA, and if it was the ancestor it would show much greater genetic similarity, thus the small percentage of DNA similarity would be because of interbreeding rather than descent. For example, Neanderthals and modern H.sapiens share max 5-7 percent (smth like that) DNA in common, but we say they shared a common ancestor and interbred rather than Neanderthals being the ancestor of H.sapeins, the same logic applies here.

            tubes
            Yeah I see where your coming from.
            I hope they don't have a question like that on the exam.

              tubes so it is homo erectus, also how do we know that h.floresiensis has a small stature

                  md2112 this was from prior knowledge, And I really do understand your point about this text lacking information, but perhaps the fact that they were found in Indonesia????? Its a bit of a stretch, but I have heard sample exams for VCE indicate the type of questions we'll be given and not necessarily the actual content, like from this article we can perhaps expect a "similar case study" were we have to explain concepts but in the context of the article

                      tubes thanks for the help, also for the last question 10d what was ur answer, with the marking in consideration

                          md2112 Straight off the bat you had to recognise that anaerobic fermentation was producing the Co2
                          So i think (note he word think), the mark allocation would be:

                          1. Recognition that the wheat seeds were anaerobically fermenting because of low oxygen conditions preventing aerobic respiration

                          2. The process is faster than aerobic respiration and thus would show a consistently high level of CO2 production (this is what my teacher advised)

                          3. This process produces CO2

                          4. However after a period of time a decrease inn CO2 levels is observed as the accumulation of ethanol as a by product would accumulate and may be toxic OR because of the inefficiency of anaerobic fermentation (produces less ATP per glucose molecule) the glucose storages of the seed would run out

                          Again this is not a definitive guide but close enough

                            ok thanks do we need to know about the dates when the new homminn species diverged

                            md2112 It is Denisovans. There is 4-6% similarity in the nuclear DNA shared amongst Indigenous Australians, Papua New Guineans and Indonesians and this covers the likely route to Australia (as seen in the article). Homo erectus and Home floresiensis were in the areas near Sahul at the time of the migration to Australia but none of their nuclear DNA is shared with indigenous Australians.
                            (It’s not H. erectus because the article states clearly that no other species apart from Denisovans shared nuclear DNA with Indigenius Australians).

                                atarwonders
                                So with question 4a,
                                As the Indigenous population and the British population had never come in contact, Aboriginal's did not have the adaptive immunity in terms of B memory cells against the pathogens carried by the British, including smallpox, which resulted in deadly infection in the Aboriginals.
                                I believe to get the third mark you have to mention how British people had active immunity against smallpox and hence able to fight off infection and so the severity of infection was not as bad as in the aboriginal population

                                  chemistry1111 it cannot be B because the question has stated that aldicarb is a reversible inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase. This means it will form weak intermolecular bonds with the the enzyme (not strong covalent bonds like irreversible inhibitors), allowing it to detach from the active site (reversible = non-permanent). B says it strongly binds to the active site of acetylcholinesterase, which is therefore incorrect. A is also incorrect because the question already states that it is reversible, not permanent/irreversible. C is incorrect because inhibitors prevent the substrate from being catalysed by the enzyme, meaning the rate of the breakdown of acetylcholine cannot increase. D is correct because it will reduce the activity of acetylcholinesterase, binding to its active site and "reducing the number of active sites for acetylcholine to bind to". Hope that helps!

                                    do i need to know the specific amounts of products/inputs for cellular respiration and photosynthesis?

                                      md2112 It’s not H floresiensis because they tend to have smaller stature so compared to Aboriginal Australians who are much larger, they couldn’t be the ancestor - you can also probably talk in terms of cranial capacity and how it was found much more recently than 50000/60000 years ago when Aboriginal Australians first arrived into Sahul. The only confusion comes with H Denisova and H erectus
                                      Because it says “fossils from this time period include H erectus” I’d argue that H erectus lived in the same time period as the aboriginal Australians so its not likely to be an ancestor (also considering the lack of similarity of nuclear DNA)
                                      I feel like although H denisova only shares 4-6% nuclear DNA in common its probably the best answer here accoridng to the information given in the passage