How does metabolic rate differ in the yeast suspensions and cornseedlings?

Can someone please give me in every single small detailexplaining this to me because I don't understand this question andI need to study it and know it well for my biology lab. Thankyou!

answer

watching

views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

You have 0 free answers left.
Get unlimited access to 3.8 million step-by-step answers.

Get unlimited access

Already have an account? Log in

Jarrod RobelLv2

28 Sep 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.

Already have an account? Log in

Related questions

Hello,

I am having a hard time understanding what temperature-sensitivemutation is about? I understand that the wild type phenotype isobserved at permissive temperature and the mutation can only beseen at the restrictive temperature. However no one is able toexplain to me what specific change in the amino acid sequenceaccounts for the temperature sensitive phenotype. What happens atthe molecular level?

I've been asked the following question during a recent test andI didnt even know how to answer it:

I have isolated a series of mutant strains. Below is adescription of the mutant phenotypes. Each mutant strain contains amutation in a single gene. Please describe what gene is defectiveand why.

A temperature sensitive strain of yeast grow slowly at thepermissive temperature of 30 C but does not grow at 37 C. At 30 C,proteins are synthesized but at a slower rate. However, at 37 Cprotein synthesis ceases after 30 minutes.

whitealligator157

First of all I am not endorsing Intelligent Design (Wikipedialink); I'm asking this because I (someone who does not have abackground in biology, organic chemistry, or philosophy) got into aconversation with someone who does endorse it, and I'm trying tosee his point of view as far as rationality can allow. Second ofall, I apologize for any vagueness; Intelligent Design isn't wellenough defined as a theory for me to help that. I also apologize ifthis is rehashing content already plentiful on the Internet, butfor my purposes I can't simply depend on the likes of Wikipedia orTalk Origins, so what I'm looking for here instead is to take theopposite approach and see, based on your informed minds, if therecould possibly be any reasonable likelihood of an ideal ID theorybeing adopted.

I'm looking for the most favorable consideration for what IDmight be if it were best developed as a viable hypothesis or theoryto get an idea of how far such a discussion is worth taking. Anunbiased, informed Devil's advocate, if you will.

My cursory investigation of what Stephen Meyers (video link) andMichael Behe (video link) say (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to bethat either the first cell was likely designed intelligentlyjudging by the complex code of DNA and that evolution took coursefrom there, or that the first cells were made and many instances ofevolution were from some kind of intelligently guided mutations aswas needed to make "irreducibly complex" cells or body functions(whether the guidance stops after the Cambrian or continued even tothe point of making different types of new bacteria and differenttypes of apes/humans or whether every single mutation and adaptiveability is being guided, I'm not sure if they're at any consensus,and that's why I don't know if I should stop my question atabiogenesis or include evolution). The person I spoke with alsobrought up some specific claims (everything looks designed, DNA hasordered, complex information, blood clotting is irreduciblycomplex, ID can and has make predictions like decades ago that"Junk DNA" wasn't junk) that I don't need you to debunk (I haveGoogle).

But if there could be any possible support or truth to any ofthe above, I would appreciate knowing about that. (Again, Devil'sadvocate so I can be informed and understand where the points comefrom.) Reading an ID book alone, it would be in places hard to knowwhere they differ from actual scientific conclusions. After all,when someone who seems to know what they're talking about and canexplain something in technical detail says that something isimpossible or extremely unlikely, it's hard for me to know why theywould be wrong (are they ignoring other possibilities?misrepresenting facts? are they really right and just getting thecold shoulder from an atheistic scientific community because itimplies a deity?). So I focus on mainstream sources, even if theydon't bother entertaining ID and leave me ignorant of its possiblevirtues. And thus I'm hoping someone from this informed communitymight enlighten me to what those possible virtues might be.

Ive asked this question before but i didnt get the response i waslooking for.

How does the immune system respond to a virus infection instead ofa bacteria infection? In other words the immune system fights offbacteria in one way, how does it differ with viruses. I knowviruses are not-living parasites that need a host to survive andthat they cannot be killed with antibodies like bacteria can. Thankyou for the help in advance. Short and simple please.