<p>Order of trophic levels is just primary producer - primary consumer - secondary consumer - tertiary consumer? Of course I didn’t put that (lol) but that’s what I’m thinking now hahhh.</p>
<p>Invisible: yes, if you explained the regulation aspect correctly. CDKs and other proteins play crucial roles in regulation other proteins (such as condensin, which condenses chromosomes) in the cell cycle.</p>
<p>Good job guys. How did you think you did on the MCs?
(no specific questions)</p>
<p>umm…i hope i was clear enough too i was nervous and mightve not made sense
but ugh, whatever no sense worrying now ill see my score in JULY</p>
<p>i said autotrophs, primary consumer, secondary consumer, tertiary consumer
*i blanked on the producer part</p>
<p>I put Calvin cycle and transcription for ATP requiring processes.</p>
<p>Guys… It’s not about what proteins are doing to regulate, its how proteins are BEING regulated.</p>
<p>Things like DNA methylation to turn off genes so no proteins are made from those genes, DNA acetylation speeding up protein synthesis, needing the right transcription factors and activators from enhancers to start transcription, alternative RNA splicing, degradation of mRNA depending on the length of poly-A tail - allows cells to regulate the number of polypeptides made, protein timed death when cells don’t need proteins anymore</p>
<p>I put mutation and non-random mating.</p>
<p>Would those two work?</p>
<p>non-random mating is part of natural selection, so i would assume so</p>
<p>Genetic drift and speciation would be mechanisms of evolution?</p>
<p>jzhang: mutation works but non-random mating? didn’t the question ask for “sources of genetic variation” non-random matin doesn’t give genetic variation, it does the opposite</p>
<p>[Synthetic</a> Theory of Evolution: Non-random Mating](<a href=“http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_8.htm]Synthetic”>http://anthro.palomar.edu/synthetic/synth_8.htm)</p>
<p>also, this is kind of random but i’m glad i had the first apbio frqs. form b looks killer</p>
<p>I like #3 of the FRQs of form B! xD</p>
<p>Are symmetry (radial vs. bilateral) and ceolom formation legitimate ways to determine phylogeny or are they just ways of classifying animals? Because that’s what I put for that question… :/</p>
<p>For sources of experimental error in the fish one, i put genetic differences between the fish and behavioral differences such as being imprinted to a mother that preferred
warmer temperatures.</p>
<p>Is this BS at least plausible?</p>
<p>Also, like the guy above me, i mentioned symmetry, coelems, cephalization and embryology.</p>
<p>I like form B ALOT better.
Only #4 is hard on form B.</p>
<p>Edit: I read the chart on #1 wrong… Instead of 12-17 degrees I put 17-22 degrees.
That would affect my 1a graph, and the analysis… damn I lost so much marks for that one question.</p>
<p>WOW ^ agreed. Form B is so easy. Even the last 1, just gas exchange there.</p>
<p>Did anyone put mineral concerntration? (for the control question in #1) lol…</p>
<p>hHallmark, that’s way too specific. Maybe partial points.</p>
<p>Novalord, that’s very plausible BS.</p>
<p>jzhang, lol too bad.</p>
<p>^^ we don’t get points for being specific? I thought that was a good thing…</p>