Scioly.org

On a similar note, for "human karyotype analysis for nondisjunction disorders", would that focus solely on identification/consequences or would it also broach the causes?

venules wrote:On a similar note, for "human karyotype analysis for nondisjunction disorders", would that focus solely on identification/consequences or would it also broach the causes?

Again, we don't know exactly what the rules committee intended with the way they wrote those rules, unless rules clarifications get submitted/answered/posted or unless someone from the life sciences committee cares to pop up on the forums and explain. In my personal opinion I think there's a good chance that people who write tests for Designer Genes will probably cover the mutations themselves because those are literally THE REASON why they exist, but again, *shrugs*

Disclaimer: the above is my opinion and may not necessarily reflect the true intention of the committee overlords.

I stand by my speculative opinion that the reason for the discrepancy on mutations is because after the Heredity rules were reworked, their contents were transferred into DG without much looking into how the specific wording of the two fit together. I believe the transfer didn't happen until after SOSI.

pikachu4919 wrote:

venules wrote:On a similar note, for "human karyotype analysis for nondisjunction disorders", would that focus solely on identification/consequences or would it also broach the causes?

Again, we don't know exactly what the rules committee intended with the way they wrote those rules, unless rules clarifications get submitted/answered/posted or unless someone from the life sciences committee cares to pop up on the forums and explain. In my personal opinion I think there's a good chance that people who write tests for Designer Genes will probably cover the mutations themselves because those are literally THE REASON why they exist, but again, *shrugs*

Disclaimer: the above is my opinion and may not necessarily reflect the true intention of the committee overlords.

They have posted as response to my FAQ. Mutation types are in-scope, as expected.

Should I devote space on my note sheet to a codon chart, or will that information most likely be provided?

sheinbergd19 wrote:Should I devote space on my note sheet to a codon chart, or will that information most likely be provided?

I would go ahead and add it just in case, since I don't think a codon chart will be provided. You can always change your note sheet later if you have other information that's more important/you find yourself not using it.

Should I include Hardy-Weinberg in my ref sheet? Based on the rules, it doesn't seem that the conditions nor the equation should show up on the test, but I may be wrong.

Vortexx wrote:Should I include Hardy-Weinberg in my ref sheet? Based on the rules, it doesn't seem that the conditions nor the equation should show up on the test, but I may be wrong.

It could show up, simply because there's likely to be overlap between event supervisors and bio teachers/professors who may assume that this is covered.

I'm just curious did anyone find their regionals a looooot harder than they expected? Mine was spouting stuff straight out of alberts. Like supercoiling and topoisomerase IV (which i did not even realize there were multiple pigeon types of and that they weren't exclusive to eukaryotes)

Anyone have recommendations for textbooks and specific chapters to study?