Do you take wikipedia as a reliable source?You're going to need to backup the claims that A) Structure of cones do in fact change. B) They get thinner in the fovea. I'm sure you, having a background in Advanced Science, would understand this requirement. Surely something as specific as this would be mentioned somewhere on the internet, don't you think?
Not when there's a big fat  sign next to the paragraph.Do you take wikipedia as a reliable source?
"Structurally, cone cells have a cone-like shape at one end where a pigment filters incoming light, giving them their different response curves. They are typically 40-50 µm long, and their diameter varies from .50 to 4.0 µm, being smallest and most tightly packed at the center of the eye at the fovea."
ok, this is so pathetic. who cares, whats done is done. our marks are in.So I kind of don't want to talk about the com option. I did the genetics option and it was difficult (especially the last question on gene cloning and gene cascades) but personally it was manageable.
As for the core it was VERY different to past paper that seemed to be more cutting out dotpoints and changing a word her or there. It was more skill based which had lead me to be very anxious.
As forthe evolution question about NZ and Aus etc, do you all rekon that you only had to meniton the source once or twice and use your own knowledge like it said, as in if your answer isn't founded on the source it's ok because it sais source and own knowledge like it does in ancient?
Why would you get abrasive about what I said? If you want to do that then I'm sorry to say that the source actually had nothing to do with transitional forms of mammals to birds as outside of the HSC it is common knowledge that birds descended from the dinosaurs and mammals did not, therefore they aren't transitional forms (which wasn't even covertly implied within the source.) It was about, if anything, biogeography and the effects of separation + differring physical and chemical pressures for evolution, also the "sudden" appearance of birds would have been said to talk about punctuated equilibrium. I was merely asking something but since you're on some conceited high horse I feel compelled to bring you down.ok, this is so pathetic. who cares, whats done is done. our marks are in.
i did this question last yalando. i thought it was great. they dont give you a source for no reason. i think you needed to make a solid argument about how the source (from memory it was showing the transitional form of mammals and birds or something) validates evolution. however, they gave you so much room for you to go into everything (comparative anatomy, embryology, biochemistry etc). so basically, you needed to do both well for any chance of getting 7.
I dont think the question is hard, you can kind of just use your common sense with the answer. However i dont think images of such are even in the text books. Because i remember after the test i was trying to look for them in the Jacaranda book and Maquire books but found nothing of that sort. Maybe i wasnt looking hard enoughThe larynx one was easy? The closer together the vocal cords are, the higher the pitch of the sound :/ lol
No, it wasn't. But luckily our teacher just got a picture off the internet and put it into our workbooks.Jonneeh said:However i dont think images of such are even in the text books.