Thread: RGS Biology Performance Task.

should the theory of evolution be included in local[singapore] curriculum?
it has not been confirmed yet, even though evidence against the theory has not been unearthed as of yet.

The Evolution Theory is biology postulates that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types, and that the distinguishable disparities are due to modifications in subsequent generations. This theory in itself is rather far-fetched, who's to say we ever had a common ancestor? I mean, what evidence is there to prove that humans are related to animals, the very notion is quite grotesque really.
According to imperialist Francis Bacon, humans tend to use the easiest and simplest solution. It would not seem to be the case here, i mean why couldn't the 'common ancestor' just've produced a HUGE variety of organisms at once, no one really knows what our very first ancestor looked like, or if it's reproductory habits were extremely deviant who's to say that it wasn't a norm to have mutant offspring everytime.

i don't really know whether to laugh or cry when someone comes up with statements like "evolution has not been confirmed yet"

read Karl Popper and you'll know that there's no way that scientific theories (and yes, we still call them theories even though they've been around and confirmed for centuries, it doesn't mean they're a hunch i had last night in the pub) can be confirmed

a theory only counts as scientific if is in principle falsifiable, i.e. it makes predictions about the world that can be tested - if any of these tests turn out to be false, it discredits the theory or at least our current understanding of it
on the other hand, if the test turns out to be true, the theory is said to be corroborated, which is usually taken as a strengthening of its place under the sun - mind you, never final confirmation, only pro tem

now listen to this, because it is fact : Darwin's theory of evolution has been around for about 150 years, it has been tested ad nauseam and not once has any finding seriously challenged its core predictions (there was a time in the first few decades of the 20th century when the theory was thought be in danger from the new science of genetics, only for the detractors of natural selection to be found wrong, when genetics became the strongest supporting evidence for it)

Yeah Im a bit frustrated reading this thread as well.

However "far-fetched" evolution may seem to you it has been confirmed by modern genetics. We share a huge amount of our genome with apes, mice/rats and we even share 35% of our genome with the daffodill. This is massive evidence that we did indeed originate from some sort of common ancestor. We have similar chemistry to many organisms which would also make a lot of sense and may also support evolution.

Regarding Francis Bacon said I think that is largely irrelevant whatever spin you want to put on it. Also, the idea of a common ancestor giving of loads of different organisms shows that maybe you dont actually understand the theory or its underlying mechanisms.

I'm not very well-informed when it comes to evolution (of course they don't teach it in our schools), so can someone tell me what the actual Darwin's theory of evolution is about?

On a basic level, in an environment there is generally a constant number of a species. The birth rate is much greater however not all offspring survive. They do not suvive due to competition between each other and between their prey. Only those with advantageous characteristics survive, for example, the rabbit who can run the fastest may outrun its prey whereas the slower rabbit will be caught and killed. This process is called natural selection.

The ones with the advantageous characteristics go on to reproduce and their offspring will have these advanages by inheritance.
Over a long period of time, the build up and changing by this natural selection leads to the organism changing gradually until eventually an entirely new species is formed.

That seems very logical. I know a little about natural selection, like how moths today are brown/blach in colour when they used to be green s long time ago, because of pollution and their ability to camouflage...but whats the cause of all the controversy about this? It seems pretty logical to me...

Originally Posted by scientist-to-be

That seems very logical. I know a little about natural selection, like how moths today are brown/blach in colour when they used to be green s long time ago, because of pollution and their ability to camouflage...but whats the cause of all the controversy about this? It seems pretty logical to me...

Most of the controversy is because some people interpret the 6 days of creation described in the bible literally and think that god created all species as they are today about 6000 years ago.

sorry but umm this thread is actually one of our [VERY ASININE] school project type thingums. so please don't reply[?]

thankyou(:

excuse ME, but would you listen to what you are saying.
why on earth would an organism give birth/produce weird offspring everytime.

as for evidence, the [not-so] recent advancements in technology have allowed for paleontologic studies and research to be carried out.
Nick Steno noticed the similarity between 'tongue stones' and shark teeth. When found out later on that the alleged stones, were in actuality shark teeth, it paved the way for a new faction in science: PALEONTOLOGY - the science of the forms of life existing in former geologic periods, as represented by their fossils.

but why is the creation theory so impossible!
practically the whole of Europe believed in it, there's even historical text to back it up, and there is proof that there was indeed a man named Jesus. the Bible might not be wrong.

and what about the Lamarckian Theory:
- that organs improve with repeated use, and weakened with disuse.
- such environmentally determined acquisitions or losses of organs “are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arrive."

it makes a whole lot of sense too.

Originally Posted by theHISTORIAN

but why is the creation theory so impossible!

because it's not science - science works by trying to fit the known facts into a theory that explains all of them

creation "science" takes the bible as the first and last word of truth and tries to fit the facts around a literal interpretation of the scriptures - anything that doesn't fit gets thrown out

in science you attempt to find the truth by interrogating the data, not start off with what you insist is the truth and fit the data aournd it willy-nilly

see also this :