Scioly.org

crazyfloboe wrote:

PicturePerfect wrote:@CS:
Yeah, Hardy Weinberg showed up on the test. I asked the proctor if that wasn't a Division C topic, but he said it was, and I quote, "a bit of a stretch, but it's fine". -.- So my partner and I ended up putting: "1. Assuming we are Div. C 2. Assuming we know this" and some other stuff.. xD

Isn't that a nats topic? I mean so is transcription and translation but we had that on our test. I haven't seen H-W yet

Eh, Hardy-Weinberg is easy anyway. I think it's supposed to be a nats topic only, but sometimes you get bad event writers. I remember once when I did Herpetology, we were asked to identify the species of sea turtle, even though the event only went to genus for sea turtles. We just had to guess, we couldn't do anything about it.

We didn't study Hardy-Weinberg, so we had no idea what it was about..

Speaking of Hardy Weinberg... There was a question on a test I did that was kind of confusing, I tried looking it up several times but could't find anything on it.
True or False: If a population is NOT in Hardy Weinberg equilibrium, it will achieve equilibrium in the next generation if selection if not occurring.

The answer is True, doesn't seem like it though. Can anyone explain that???

Half-Blood-Princess wrote:Speaking of Hardy Weinberg... There was a question on a test I did that was kind of confusing, I tried looking it up several times but could't find anything on it.
True or False: If a population is NOT in Hardy Weinberg equilibrium, it will achieve equilibrium in the next generation if selection if not occurring.

The answer is True, doesn't seem like it though. Can anyone explain that???

Hmmm, I'm not sure why the answer should be "true". You basically never get Hardy Weinberg equilibrium in a real population, since it's impossible to meet all the criteria. Even if you remove all selection (natural and sexual), you still don't have an infinitely large population size, and it doesn't say you prevent mutation or migration, so I don't see how it could achieve equilibrium.

I'm inclined to say that the answer key is wrong.

Oh okay... Yeah probably. Well that would make a lot more sense. Thank you!

gneissisnice wrote:

Half-Blood-Princess wrote:Speaking of Hardy Weinberg... There was a question on a test I did that was kind of confusing, I tried looking it up several times but could't find anything on it.
True or False: If a population is NOT in Hardy Weinberg equilibrium, it will achieve equilibrium in the next generation if selection if not occurring.

The answer is True, doesn't seem like it though. Can anyone explain that???

Hmmm, I'm not sure why the answer should be "true". You basically never get Hardy Weinberg equilibrium in a real population, since it's impossible to meet all the criteria. Even if you remove all selection (natural and sexual), you still don't have an infinitely large population size, and it doesn't say you prevent mutation or migration, so I don't see how it could achieve equilibrium.

I'm inclined to say that the answer key is wrong.

I honestly really dislike that equilibrium. It can practically never be obtained. Unless you pause a population in time and remove the sick and the weak and don't have any breeding. So its never obtained.

crazyfloboe wrote:

gneissisnice wrote:

Half-Blood-Princess wrote:Speaking of Hardy Weinberg... There was a question on a test I did that was kind of confusing, I tried looking it up several times but could't find anything on it.
True or False: If a population is NOT in Hardy Weinberg equilibrium, it will achieve equilibrium in the next generation if selection if not occurring.

The answer is True, doesn't seem like it though. Can anyone explain that???

Hmmm, I'm not sure why the answer should be "true". You basically never get Hardy Weinberg equilibrium in a real population, since it's impossible to meet all the criteria. Even if you remove all selection (natural and sexual), you still don't have an infinitely large population size, and it doesn't say you prevent mutation or migration, so I don't see how it could achieve equilibrium.

I'm inclined to say that the answer key is wrong.

I honestly really dislike that equilibrium. It can practically never be obtained. Unless you pause a population in time and remove the sick and the weak and don't have any breeding. So its never obtained.

Yeah, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is never met in nature because the criteria are just unrealistic. The point of the equation is to find what the allelic frequency SHOULD be if the population was at equilibrium, and then see how and why the actual allelic frequency differs.

gneissisnice wrote:
Yeah, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium is never met in nature because the criteria are just unrealistic. The point of the equation is to find what the allelic frequency SHOULD be if the population was at equilibrium, and then see how and why the actual allelic frequency differs.

I guess I just think realistically. It makes no sense to me but eh.

Someone help me with Baye's theorem for conditional probabilities?

So according to my packet, the equation is P(B|A) = P(A and B)/P(A).

Suppose a woman is carrying one X chromosome with the gene for a particular type of colorblindness. She marries a man who does not have this gene on his X chromosome. What is the probability that her first child will carry the X chromosome with the gene associated with color blindness?

I'm not sure how to take that information and put it into the equation. :/

Half-Blood-Princess wrote:Oh okay... Yeah probably. Well that would make a lot more sense. Thank you!

Well it did say that no selection was occurring.

Either way you seemed to have trouble with Hardy-Weinberg in general so here goes.

Dominant gene % + Recessive gene % = 1

D % + 2Dd % + d % = 1

I think.

So if they tell you the allele frequency of B allele is 0.36, then you know 0.6 of the population is DD or Dd, by square rooting.

Hope that helped.