Bio II??

[ndb]

I took Bio I two years ago, got an A, but cant say I remember all of the details from that class. Will I be at a disadvantage starting Bio II since it has been so long since I was exposed to BIO I? I don't see it being a huge issue, but thought I would seek the opinions of everyone on here.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Bacchus]

My Bio II did not really coorelate to bio II. It was more physiologically related and about the mechanisms of various life. Bio I was more taxanomically related.

Edit: I didn't pick up my Bio I notes again for Bio II. I did better second semester. So, I don't think there is a coorelation. I guess it depends on your institution.

 

[Dustbunny]

It's just information that must be assimilated. It doesn't really build in the same way that, for instance, Organic II builds on Organic I.

 

[RDickerson]

Just finished Bio II with an A (pending a disastrous final). I have not taken Bio I, and it did not affect me in the least bit with learning what you need to know for the class. As other posters said above, bio II dealt more with physiology and the way and reason certain systems work. It had a bit of an ecology part at the end, and some plants, but like I said nothing you HAVE to know from the 1st section.

 

[RDickerson]

Hah, and I just noticed you're from Denton. I go to UNT, you'll probably have Dzialowski for your Bio II professor, he's really good. Take good notes though, his tests are NOT easy and he curves maybe 5 points. That being said he is a great professor and the information he gives really flows together well. Make sure you understand the big picture.

 

[prionsRbad]

Nah, it’s OK. Like one of the previous posters stated, the two classes don't build on each other. You'll be fine!

 

[MossPoh]

I hope they don't built on each other...been 4 years since my last general bio. I really don't know how much "building" there could be on general biology stuff....most people I know kind of wipe their brain clear of the material as soon as that final is handed in.

 

[spicedmanna]

I'm not sure how it works in every school (check your course catalog), but at my undergraduate institution, the first semester of biology is quite distinct from the second. In the first, the focus is on introducing cell and molecular biology, and for the last the focus is primarly on evolutionary biology. I imagine that there is some minor overlap, particularly, I would assume, in the area of genetics, but I think a quick review of related material will likely bring you up to speed during those times of overlap, if it is even necessary at all.

 

[bioteach]

I teach both BIO I and BIO II. You can definately take them separate of one another. Sure, I reference photosynthesis, genetics and cellular respiration in my BIO II lectures, but more to make connections for students. You don't need BIO I to do well in BIO II. In most schools (but not all) BIO I is on a molecular level (cellular metabolism, genetics, central dogma) whereas BIO II is organismal, ecological and evolutionary biology.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

I teach both BIO I and BIO II. You can definately take them separate of one another. Sure, I reference photosynthesis, genetics and cellular respiration in my BIO II lectures, but more to make connections for students. You don't need BIO I to do well in BIO II. In most schools (but not all) BIO I is on a molecular level (cellular metabolism, genetics, central dogma) whereas BIO II is organismal, ecological and evolutionary biology.

Ours was the exact opposite. That's why I hated Bio I. It's utterly pointless. I could care less about HOW things evolve and all it did for me was make me question why the hell they waste research money on such things as genotype vs. phenotype in lizards, let alone give someone tenure because of such drivel. Explain to me what the hell that will ever yield that might benefit mankind?

 

[lrobin15]

Ours was the exact opposite. That's why I hated Bio I. It's utterly pointless. I could care less about HOW things evolve and all it did for me was make me question why the hell they waste research money on such things as genotype vs. phenotype in lizards, let alone give someone tenure because of such drivel. Explain to me what the hell that will ever yield that might benefit mankind?

This is also how my school is. And the classes were easy, I mean really easy.

 

[MaximusD]

Ours was the exact opposite. That's why I hated Bio I. It's utterly pointless. I could care less about HOW things evolve and all it did for me was make me question why the hell they waste research money on such things as genotype vs. phenotype in lizards, let alone give someone tenure because of such drivel. Explain to me what the hell that will ever yield that might benefit mankind?

Great things can come from understanding our environment. We find new model organisms. Antibiotics are the result of fungus research -- who would have predicted that? If you look at phenotype vs. genotype it can tell a great deal about penetrance (and if you know much about genetics we share vast amounts of DNA with every living creature on earth). For instance, a new area of research is in salamanders. Why? Salamanders express a gene that allows for the regeneration of lost limbs. What's fairly shocking about this is that some scientists believe that humans have this gene and that somewhere in our evolutionary history, we stopped expressing it -- probably due to the high energy cost of regenerating a limb. Can you imagine the potential of gene therapy in individuals with amputated limbs? Sniff an adenovirus vector and bam, you can regrow your lost leg. (Admittedly, a bit far fetched)

Usually I appreciate your blunt comments, but this one feeds into a premed anger that is unfounded. The biology series is essential.. no doubt about it. And that is coming from a guy who got straight B's until 400-level bio.

I'll agree bio 1 was primarily annoying taxonomy, but most of that stuff IS important. The naming -- not so much. But there are many foundations laid in that course that are crucial.