VCE Biology Questions Thread
- Edited
Just want to confirm if my reasoning is right and ask a question about how index fossils are use to date other fossils found in the same strata:
Firstly radiometric dating is utilized to date igneous rock associated with (near) sedimentary layer that the index fossil is found within, percentage of parent isotope is compared to broken down products, hence using stratigraphy it can be inferred that the age of the index fossil = ____.
Using stratigraphy, the fossil found in the same strata is the same age as the index fossil, ____.
So if the question asked whether using index fossils is absolute or relative (point 2) what would be say?
Relative - because the age of the fossil is being determined by using the index fossil nearby?
or Absolute - because the NUMERICAL value of the fossil is known because of the INDEX fossils whose NUMERICAL age is also known?
Hey tubes!
- Firstly radiometric dating is utilized to date igneous rock associated with (near) sedimentary layer that the index fossil is found within, percentage of parent isotope is compared to broken down products, hence using stratigraphy it can be inferred that the age of the index fossil = ____.
Here you must mention that calculations are made based on the half life of the particular radioisotope measured in the radiometric dating; otherwise, how does the ratio of parent to daughter nuclei help?
It might also be good to mention the type of radiometric dating technique you are referring to (i.e. K-Ar dating), as they all have ranges.
- Using stratigraphy, the fossil found in the same strata is the same age as the index fossil, ____.
Yes, you are correct here as well, but because the unknown fossil is more often than not in another strata from the index fossil used, the index fossils are often used in conjunction with the principle of superposition (which states that rock strata are arranged in a order of progressing age, with the newest at top, in normal conditions). That is to say, if there is a fossil of unknown age and it is found below an index fossil, it can be inferred that the unknown fossil is older than a certain age (i.e. that of the index fossil); and vice versa.
So if the question asked whether using index fossils is absolute or relative (point 2) what would be say?
Relative - because the age of the fossil is being determined by using the index fossil nearby?
or Absolute - because the NUMERICAL value of the fossil is known because of the INDEX fossils whose NUMERICAL age is also known?
Relative. If an index fossil is used it is always relative. Because it is in relation -- or in other words, relative to -- the index fossil (also links back to my previous point that the unknown fossil is more often than not, in a different rock strata to the index fossil, so the approximate numerical age is not known anyway).
Hope this helps .
Moskva
Thank you it makes sense. But this VCAA question is kind of confusing, like I understand the answers but I'm confused on how to categorize it. 2018 NHT 7 b and c in which it asks how the ABSOLUTE AGE can be determined using the ancient mollusk (similar to index fossils in the sense of providing RELATIVE age), so it is a relative dating technique that can provide ABSOLUTE AGE or it is an absolute dating technique.
Thank you once again
- Edited
God
Hi,
I agree with your first point. But in that VCAA question by determining absolute age of the igneous rock you could determine the absolute age of the ancient mollusk (as specified in the stem) by using relative dating techniques, since its found in the same stratum (after first using absolute dating techniques on the igneous rock), so would finding the relative age of the ancient mollusk (in the same stratum as the dated igneous rock) be used to determine its absolute age of 50 my???? So is it also possible for it to be the other way around????
So all in all what technique would it be: absolute or relative???
- Edited
Question Stem: The scientists justified that the P. portelli fossil is 50 million years old by referring to fossils of several ancient molluscs.
Exam Report: The radiometric dating is done on igneous rock layers associated with the sedimentary layers in which the fossil molluscs have been found elsewhere in the world
Ahhh...I think I understand what you're saying. In this case, it would be a relative age of the fossil. (Made more accurate as the index fossil is tested many times in many places) (The age of the rock would be absolute)
Hello again tubes
But in that VCAA question by determining absolute age of the igneous rock you could determine the absolute age of the ancient mollusk (as specified in the stem) by using relative dating techniques, since its found in the same stratum (after first using absolute dating techniques on the igneous rock),
You misinterpreted the VCAA question (/suggested answer).
Scientists take samples of igneous rock from igneous rock strata above and below the mollusc fossils. Then they use the ratio of Potassium-40 to Argon-40, and the half-life value of Potassium-40 to calculate the age of these igneous rock strata. Since the mollusc is in between these two strata of igneous rock scientists can kind of average the two values and get an approximate age* of the mollusc fossil. This is absolute dating.
*I know the name of the dating method would suggest that it yields an absolute value, but unfortunately it is not always possible to directly date a fossil.
- Edited
Hi guys, I was just wondering if any of you could review and guide me with answering Question 9 of the sample examination for 2022 VCE.
a) Homo heidelbergensis that evolved into Homo sapiens 300,000ya in Africa and then migrated to Australia 50,000 ya. Already present before the arrival of the ancestors of Indigenous Australians was Homo erectus - an earlier hominin- that had previously migrated out of Africa and had diverged into Homo floresiensis in Indonesia also coexisted with Homo sapiens.
b) Migration to Australia occurred in 2 distinct pathways, were one group reached and travelled along the East coast 40,000 ya and the 2nd group travelled across the western coast and settled 41000, because the 2 main groups were geographically isolated by Australia's mainland, gene flow was limited and hence different mutations occurred and accumulated in each population's genome
c)i) Evidence of art (cultural evolution) such as cave paintings
The presence of stone tools
c)ii) The large genetic variation in mtDNA indicates that a long time had elapsed since migration hence the time for mutations to accumulate, supporting a continuous presence in Australia as well as in discrete areas as many different mutations occurred in specific isolated population and hence accumulated because of the lack of gene flow leading to 111 mtDNA genomes to diverge
Thanks
Hello hello tubes!
Ah, human evolution question! My [least] favourite!
I will try to give some tips, advice, and some suggested answers. However please note that I am not a teacher, so other advice (i.e. from your VCE Biology teacher) is highly recommended.
a) Which currently known hominin species is most likely the ancestor of Aboriginal Australians? Explain
your response by referring to the different species and other information presented in the article. (3 marks)
a) Homo heidelbergensis that evolved into Homo sapiens 300,000ya in Africa and then migrated to Australia 50,000 ya. Already present before the arrival of the ancestors of Indigenous Australians was Homo erectus - an earlier hominin- that had previously migrated out of Africa and had diverged into Homo floresiensis in Indonesia also coexisted with Homo sapiens.
You should make it clearer which hominin species you are selecting for your answer (e.g. "Homo heidelbergensis, evolved into Homo sapiens...").
The question stem specifically asks for an explanation using hominin species referenced in the provided article, you made a tangent which references hominins referenced in the article; these are very different things.
In this question/example, Homo denisova would have been the best hominin species to reference in your answer, because we are told (presented information) that Aboriginal Australians share some common DNA with H. denisova. Even more compelling evidence presented in the article is that it specifically states no other currently known ancestral species shares similar nuclear DNA with Aboriginal Australians.
b) Comparisons of genomes of Aboriginal Australian populations on the west coast and east coast suggest
that there were two distinct pathways of migration across Australia.
Using supporting evidence from the article, explain likely reasons for the differences seen in the
genomes of the populations. (2 marks)
tubes b) Migration to Australia occurred in 2 distinct pathways, were one group reached and travelled along the East coast 40,000 ya and the 2nd group travelled across the western coast and settled 41000, because the 2 main groups were geographically isolated by Australia's mainland, gene flow was limited and hence different mutations occurred and accumulated in each population's genome
This is good, you have the main guts of it down; as you mentioned gene flow is limited and accumulation of different mutations lead to differences. I would only suggest polishing it up a little bit.
E.g.
- Migration to Australia, by who?
- Be more precise in how gene flow is limited, mainland is usually a means of gene flow.
- Also be more precise that a large amount of time has elapsed in order for the mutations to accumulate.
Overall pretty good answer for this part, goodjob
️
c) Analysis of mtDNA from Aboriginal Australians and phylogeographic patterns support the contention
that there was a continuous presence of distinct populations in discrete geographic areas for up to
50000 years.
i) Identify two types of artefacts that may be found in a particular geographic area if Aboriginal
Australians had lived in that area for long periods of time (thousands of years)? (2 marks)
i) Evidence of art (cultural evolution) such as cave paintings. The presence of stone tools.
VCAA has specifically stated in their 2022 VCE Biology FAQs that "...ability to distinguish between biological evolution and cultural evolution is not required."
So I think this is a typical case of VCAA blunder, and am not so sure you will encounter such questions on the end of year exam.However, in the case that it does show up, answers such as cave paintings, burial sites... etc. are perfectly fine, I think (stress "I think"
).
ii) Explain how mtDNA phylogeny provides evidence for the continuous presence of Aboriginal
Australian populations in discrete geographic areas. (3 marks)
ii) The large genetic variation in mtDNA indicates that a long time had elapsed since migration hence the time for mutations to accumulate, supporting a continuous presence in Australia as well as in discrete areas as many different mutations occurred in specific isolated population and hence accumulated because of the lack of gene flow leading to 111 mtDNA genomes to diverge
This is a hard question. I had to think about it for a while. What do they mean by continuous presence?
The question asks for an explanation, you need to give a structured and logical line of thought in order to explain this.
Perhaps you could say "When Aboriginal Australian populations formed in discrete geographic locations, they became isolated from other populations; which then limited gene flow between these populations. Consequently, over long (and continuous) periods of time, differences in their gene pools from mutations, natural selection and genetic drift accumulated. MtDNA phylogeny can serve as evidence of these differences, and hence the continuous presence of these populations."
Or perhaps we can take a different angle of attack and say "Large differences between genetics of Aboriginal Populations of discrete geographical areas illustrated in mtDNA phylogeny, evidence that these populations have been established a very long time ago and have been continuously present. As those are the conditions required for these differences to arise, conditions required for factors such as lack of gene flow, different mutations, different natural selection pressures acting, and genetic drift to act on these populations; and create such differences."
Feel free to add anything to these "suggested" answers (or dispute their validity), I feel like VCAA expects a fairly meaty answer for this type of question; perhaps some more information from the article can be utilised?
Be careful, as it is very easy to fall into the trap of making an answer which uses false logic/circular reasoning for this sort of question, yuck
.
Hope this helps!
(Apologies if I may have used harsh wording.)
Hey! Just wondering if the action of mRNA exiting the nucleus and traveling to the ribosome should be included as part of transcription or translation? Thanks!
chimichurri
I'm gonna guess neither. (As it is not being created / copied)
- Edited
Hey chimichurri!
VCAA probably wouldn't ask you about this specifically.
I would only include it in the context of a Translation question.
️
Hey guys. I was thinking about c)ii) from the sample exam, and an idea came up to use "111 mitochondrial genomes exist" as how "mtDNA phylogeny provides evidence" Just wondering if my line of thought would be correct:
"Genomes" suggests that they are distinct gene pools (in terms of mtDNA). If gene flow was possible between these populations there would be one genome with high variation not separate genomes
Hence they must have been present in Australia for the genetic variations caused and accumulated by natural selection, genetic drift and mutations for the genomes to become separate/"diverge"
- Edited
thanks for your help guys! also, why does pre-mRNA read the template strand (in transcription) in a 3' to 5' direction? Isn't DNA usually read in a 5' to 3' direction?
Also, I had been taught that one gene coded for multiple amino acids but then isn't an operon made of multiple genes that code for the one amino acid? Is that right? What's the difference between a gene and an operon here?
hi
- Edited
Hi chimichurri!
Let me try and explain how operons/genes work.
Firstly, remember that a gene is a section of DNA that codes for a specific protein. Of course, genes are found in both eukaryotes and prokaryotes. A gene will code for multiple amino acids, forming a polypeptide chain that can be folded to form a functional protein. An operon is generally only found in prokaryotes, and its a cluster of linked genes that all share a common promoter and operator, and are transcribed at the same time. Generally, all of these genes are related by function (i.e. biochemical process that they are a part of). Now, the genes in the operon are structural genes (genes that don't code for regulatory proteins, but instead proteins needed for structure or cellular functioning). The trp operon (that you need to know about from the study design) consists of multiple structural genes and has a structure like the following:
3' end - Promoter - Operator - Leader (TrpL) - Attenuator - TrpE - TrpD - TrpC - TrpB - TrpA - Trailer - 5' end
TrpE to TrpA are your important structural genes. As we know, genes code for many amino acids, so an operon is not going to just code for amino acid. It is easy to think that the trp operon codes only for one amino acid, that being tryptophan (since the process can be quite confusing to understand). However, the trp operon actually codes for multiple polypeptides, each structural gene being transcribed and translated to form different proteins (specifically enzymes) that are required to produce tryptophan. Here are some details on the enzymes formed (don't need to know the specifics, but it can be helpful in understanding how it works).
- TrpE and TrpD -> Form enzyme Anthranilate synthase, which converts chorismate (found in the cell) into anthranilate.
- TrpC -> Forms enzyme Indole-3-glycerol-photosphate synthase, which converts anthranilate into indole-3-glycerol-photosphate.
- TrpB and TrpA -> Forms enzyme Tryptophan synthase, which converts indole-3-glycerol-photosphate into tryptophan.
(Requires lots of energy, meaning the process needs to be tightly regulated via attenuation and repression mechanisms).
To put it simply, the enzymes are produced to convert certain chemical products into tryptophan, with each enzyme consisting of many amino acids that form polypeptides and therefore are folded into functional proteins (i.e. enzymes). Hopefully that makes sense.
With directions, it can be quite confusing. RNA polymerase (not pre-mRNA) reads the strand in a 3' to 5' direction, forming an mRNA strand (mRNA for prokaryotes, but pre-mRNA for eukaryotes) that is 5' to 3' (due to complementary nature of DNA transcription). DNA replication is the same, as DNA polymerase reads the strand from 3' to 5' and writes a new DNA strand from 5' to 3'. I remember it like this: "When we study, we read up on a topic (3' to 5'), and then you write it down (5' to 3')". That said, google makes it kind of confusing by saying that DNA is read 5' to 3', but I'm assuming that it is referring to the fact that whilst the template strand being copied in a complementary manner is the 3' to 5' direction, the actual coding strand that is being replicated is 5' to 3' (which is why the created DNA or RNA strand is always written in a 5' to 3' direction). I might be wrong about that though. Not sure if that makes sense, since I'm still trying to wrap my head around how it works haha.