Jump to content


Photo

Do You Understand Evolution Quizzes


  • Please log in to reply
152 replies to this topic

#1 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 June 2017 - 09:19 AM

Well I had fun doing Goku's little religious quiz so I googled to see if there was an evo test. Often in the EvC debate the common theme comes up, as to whether the person in question understands evolution theory. It seems to be a popular argument that creationists in particular, don't understand evolution.

 

I've found two basic quizzes here, the first one seems a bit more in depth, here it is;

 

http://www.gotoquiz....lution_t_f_quiz

 

The following was my score. (I admit I got 84% at first but I knew I got the natural selection question wrong, because I am so used to debating evolutionists that it's hard to think of the answers from the perspective of a genuinely qualified biologist;

 

Attached File  evo quiz.jpg   65.26KB   0 downloads

 

The second quiz is only ten questions, here is the link;

 

https://www.biologyc..._evolution.html

 

My score was;

 

Attached File  evo 10.jpg   4.3KB   0 downloads

 

Conclusion; Okay, so I'm no evolutionary biologist (and don't have a problem with admitting that the evolution theory's minutia isn't something that I obsessively am interested in), but I think this at least quells the accusation that because I'm creationist I don't understand evolution theory and some of the more harsh claims at EvC forum, one of which was that mike the wiz is "the dumbest person" on the planet, or something similar if memory serves me correctly, (because I gave a summary of human evolution which greatly annoyed the evolutionists there as they seemed to see it as some major misrepresentation of human evolution. It included the likes of Piltdown man but when discussing the history of evolution, it's okay to mention things like that.)

 

Prediction; I do think creationists would score lower on average though, but having said that I've came across many evolutionists online that would likely get less than 50%.



#2 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 13 June 2017 - 12:57 PM

For the first quiz my results were this:

 

"Your results for this quiz have been calculated and are presented below:

0%
You were 0% correct.
 
0%

I know lab rats smarter than you. What rock have you been hiding under anyways.I am suprised you even know how to click a mouse."

 

 

In all fairness I missed two questions my first time (92%). I missed the first question; I said "true" because that's what I thought they wanted. Then I said we evolved from monkeys; I figured that's probably not the answer they were looking for, but if you look at our ancestors about 30 million years ago you would call it a monkey, so I think it is accurate to say we evolved from monkeys (just not extant monkeys). After my first time I changed my monkey answer to "false", kept on not getting 100, and eventually read the first question carefully and realized the answer is false. Then I was able to achieve my score above.

 

The second quiz is similar to what you would get in an introductory evolutionary biology exam, only shorter in length. Got a perfect my first time.

 

If you want a more challenging quiz I found this, although it emphasizes population genetics rather than evolution in general: https://highered.mhe...ple_choice.html

 

I got 91%, or 39/43.



#3 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 June 2017 - 01:35 PM

 

 

I know lab rats smarter than you. What rock have you been hiding under anyways.I am suprised you even know how to click a mouse."

 

Doesn't hold back does he? 

 

I'll check out your new one shortly.



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 June 2017 - 02:11 PM

Yeah population genetics is a bit more of an area within evolution theory, my lack of education in this area starts to affect my score but I wouldn't say it reflects a lack of understanding of evolution theory, per say, unless you count it as a lack of education in the specific technical areas of evolution. I imagine you were taught some of this stuff in your education, Guru?

 

Attached File  newer.jpg   25.03KB   0 downloads

 

 But again would this be vital to an understanding of evolution theory? I would say not really. 65% sounds about right for me on that more technical, more scientific education you need to study for.

 

I suppose the point of this topic is more the general knowledge of evolution theory because a lot of evolutionists on forums that complain about creationists probably don't have that much knowledge of population genetics.

 

For example evolutionists online would argue and complain that creationists would usually make common arguments which definitely throw light on them not understanding evolution theory like the, "if evolution happened why are monkeys still here" type thing, or not understanding what homology is, or why natural selection is not random...or why individuals don't evolve, or why evolution never claims humans were ever not human but rather that their ancestors weren't, or that a population can remain stable, and doesn't have to evolve if there is no selection pressure, etc..so my claim isn't that I and majority creationists are educated in the technicalities of evolution theory as such.

 

So... consider that before you laugh at my 65% inferior intellect, Goku Khan. ;)


  • Goku likes this

#5 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 13 June 2017 - 02:50 PM

why would i take a quizz about "understanding evolution" that is based on the modern synthesis?

And so, on this 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, evolutionary biologists can raise a frosty glass and say:
The modern synthesis is dead — long live the evolving synthesis!
- evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/11/modern-synthesis-is-dead-long-live.html

#6 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 June 2017 - 02:53 PM

 

 

What If: why would i take a quizz about "understanding evolution" that is based on the modern synthesis? 

 

For the sake of understanding your opponents argument if you are opposed to it.

 

As I'm sure you can see, I also don't agree with Neo-Darwinism but often as creationists we are accused of misrepresentation of evolution theory, and ignorance of evolution theory, as most evolutionists define evolution theory, and as mainstream science defines it.

 

So take the test because there is no way to bring Koonin into this topic unless he wants to take the quiz. :rotfl3:  

 

;)


  • Blitzking likes this

#7 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 13 June 2017 - 02:56 PM

If I am not mistaken it would be problematic to understand something that never happened (macro-evolution). Moreover, Darwinian evolution claims no need of intelligent input to the process. But Darwin himself was intelligent so he unwitt

ingly haplessly contaminated his theory with intelligently created just "so stories." playing on time (time that he did not have) to practice science, observe, create an hypothesis and test that hypothetic. Though evo's claim to practice science, evo has never been tested and observed. Instead we are treated to"explanations" created by very intelligent beings designed to woo us to the possibility of evo. While I am a fan of Star Trek for it's entertainment value I am told warp speed might be possible but would require a power supply greater than our sun. The current speed limit in the universe is the speed of light.



I am curious as to the bias of the author of the evo test. Is it the fox guarding thehen house?



#8 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 June 2017 - 03:04 PM

 

 

Mike Summers: If I am not mistaken it would be problematic to understand something that never happened (macro-evolution).

 

:D It's more about understanding what they argue to be evolution. Rifling through these quizzes Mike, I get the impression we're really answering questions about what evolution theorists assert happened based on what evolution says. (hypothetics).

 

Yes, I can see your point that there is no practical value in understanding the fine details of the story of Peter Pan, as this won't mean children can fly, BUT, if we as creationists are going to argue evolution, we need to understand evolution otherwise we can end up knocking down a lot of things that don't falsify evolution, like strawmen.

 

Example; "I say Peter Pan is baloney because Peter Pan's best friend in that story is a toy pig, therefore children can't fly because no boy of that age would own a toy pig!"

 

My point is - in the Peter Pan story Peter Pan doesn't own a toy pig, so this complaint wouldn't falsify Peter Pan. 

 

Conclusion; As are fight against evo, it helps to be as wise as serpents but as gentle as doves, it is better to know a foolish matter inside out, than to talk foolishness about a foolish matter. ;)

 

The results just give an indication as to how much one has informed themselves about evolution theory Mike, so it just helps the person to know if they could be trying harder to educate themselves.



#9 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 13 June 2017 - 03:31 PM

For the sake of understanding your opponents argument if you are opposed to it.

it was known 70 years ago to the scientific community that the modern synthesis was incomplete, and we aren't talking about some minor revision.
it was known then that "gradual accumulation" was not the only option.
70 years dude.
the really bad part is, it's still being paraded around like it's the gospel.
i have no faith, nor time, to dabble with liars and cheats.
 

As I'm sure you can see, I also don't agree with Neo-Darwinism but often as creationists we are accused of misrepresentation of evolution theory, and ignorance of evolution theory, as most evolutionists define evolution theory, and as mainstream science defines it.

misrepresentation?
natural selection as the cause of organism complexity is an outright lie.
population genetics is just that, 2 words that have absolutely no meaning whatsoever in regards to a cells genetic makeup.
the notion of progress in regards to evolution is unwarranted.
 

So take the test because there is no way to bring Koonin into this topic unless he wants to take the quiz. :rotfl3:  

why?
the results would be the same as if i took a quizz on 2nd century physics.

#10 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 13 June 2017 - 04:05 PM

Moreover, Darwinian evolution claims no need of intelligent input to the process.

this is probably the only thing darwin got right.

keep in mind that this pertains to evolution AFTER the arrival of the first cell or cells.
this so called "intelligence" must still be accounted for with regards to abiogenesis.
the only way i can think of is by a control program.
i have no idea how this can be rationally accounted for.

#11 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 13 June 2017 - 04:12 PM

Look, I'm a stubborn old coot, and I refuse to answer unanswerable questions ... as Mike Summer said, how do you answer questions about something that never happened.

 

So I took the tests answering as if I was a reluctant, Bible-believing student stuck in a high school science class during an evo quiz. I answered each question correctly for the reality of the fact that evo is a false theory.

 

For example, question #1 The evolution of major groups of plants and animals is an observed fact. Of course I know that the "correct" answer is True. But stubborn old me just won't let that happen. Those who know the real truth know that evolution is not an observed fact.

 

And so on. Here's my score on the first test.

 

evoquiz_zps24clw6qr.png

 

The only reason I got such a high score is because of questions like #8: Evolution is something which happened only in the past; it is not happening now.

 

So, when did you stop beating your wife? Ah, gee, I never did beat my wife, so I haven't stopped. You mean I'm still beating my wife then?

 

Despite the obfuscatorical question I might have accidentally got it "right." :yes:

 

Moving on:

 

The second quiz didn't put me in the position of having to squirm in my seat and compromise my belief in the truth, so I played it straight.

 

evoquiz-2_zpsqbnxq2in.png

In fact, with a couple minor exceptions with just a little rewording of each question one could answer all the questions truthfully from a creationist point of view.

 

One exception would be question #3: "A structure that seems to serve no purpose in an organism is called ..." That doesn't have any right answer of the choices available. There are no vestigial structures. That is purely a construct of the evolution model. But, hey, I answered it "correctly" anyway just to keep my perfect score.



#12 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 June 2017 - 04:13 PM

 

 

What If: natural selection as the cause of organism complexity is an outright lie

 

I'm not sure Goku or the evolutionists would argue this. Wouldn't a new allele like recessive allele b (blue eyes) increase genetic complexity? Blue eyes were caused by a mutation a few thousand years ago which would increase the frequency of heterozygosity in the human gene pool, if I am correct on my population genetics. Goku will know.

 

But to say this is a lie, doesn't someone first have to argue it? 

 

So let's not forget, there is real science that evolutionists are looking at, they're not just sitting down and coming up with a pack of lies. Sure, this might not translate to goo-to-you evolution in real life but that doesn't mean they are incorrect about everything, and you seem to have some type of allergic reaction to mutations and natural selection I've noticed.

 

;)



#13 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 June 2017 - 04:23 PM

Thanks Dave. Seems I'm annoying people today with these quizzes which wasn't my intention.

 

Yeah you're supposed to answer that more convoluted quiz from the perspective of what evolutionists regard as factual or true. My problem was I was confusing what evolution technically argues with what evolutionists argue, which can be different.

 

The evolution theory doesn't say that evolution ever stops as allele frequencies continue to always change, and the same ingredients are ever-present so from our perspective even if evolution was stable for 4,000 years that would only be a nano-second in evolutionary time. Evolution as understood by evolution-theory, would never stop as long as environments change, mutations occur, populations change etc..so it just means from what evolution teaches.

 

You basically have to ignore the annoyance of the quiz assuming the truth of evolution, because evolutionary scientists obviously regard evolution as something that did happen, and is happening.



#14 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 13 June 2017 - 04:47 PM

Thanks Dave. Seems I'm annoying people today with these quizzes which wasn't my intention.

 

Not to worry. I took the whole thing as a fun exercise and as a chance to vent a bit. :)



#15 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 13 June 2017 - 04:48 PM

For example, question #1 The evolution of major groups of plants and animals is an observed fact. Of course I know that the "correct" answer is True. But stubborn old me just won't let that happen. Those who know the real truth know that evolution is not an observed fact.

and this is the typical garbage they are FORCING down our childrens throats.
i would really love for some scientist explain to me how the arrival of plants millions of years ago could ever be observed.
what did the alleged cavemen do, carve this stuff on a cave wall or something?
ridiculous . . . in the extreme.
it is UNKNOWN how animal phyla arrived here from eukaryote super groups.

So, when did you stop beating your wife? Ah, gee, I never did beat my wife, so I haven't stopped. You mean I'm still beating my wife then?

careful, you are speaking in riddles, just like a modern synthesist.
  • mike the wiz likes this

#16 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 13 June 2017 - 05:07 PM

I'm not sure Goku or the evolutionists would argue this. Wouldn't a new allele like recessive allele b (blue eyes) increase genetic complexity? Blue eyes were caused by a mutation a few thousand years ago which would increase the frequency of heterozygosity in the human gene pool, if I am correct on my population genetics. Goku will know.

what in the world does eye color have to do with complexity?
are you saying blue is more complex than, say, brown or green??????
the real question should be, where did the information come from that allowed this change.
this is probably why evolutionists loves words like this (complexity), because they can redifine it according to their needs.

But to say this is a lie, doesn't someone first have to argue it? 

go ask waddington for not only the argument but the experimental evidence.

mcclintoks discovery of transposons at about the same time corroborated waddingtons research.

both were outright ignored.


So let's not forget, there is real science that evolutionists are looking at, they're not just sitting down and coming up with a pack of lies.

a lie of omission is still a lie.
there is NOTHING in the modern synthesis worth salvaging, except maybe to make internet shills think they are actually earning their pay.

Sure, this might not translate to goo-to-you evolution in real life but that doesn't mean they are incorrect about everything, and you seem to have some type of allergic reaction to mutations and natural selection I've noticed.[/font]
 
;)

simply because there is NO EVIDENCE for natural selection, and the incorporation of genetic material cannot possibly be "random".
you must realize that the modern synthesis is chock full of concepts that can have any one of several different meanings.
gould refers to this as "just so" stories.

#17 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 13 June 2017 - 05:08 PM


So, when did you stop beating your wife? Ah, gee, I never did beat my wife, so I haven't stopped. You mean I'm still beating my wife then?

careful, you are speaking in riddles, just like a modern synthesist.

 

It's a real thing. M the w would probably know the name of the "When did you quit beating your wife?" fallacy.

 

 

Evolution is something which happened only in the past; it is not happening now.

Evolution never happened, in the past or otherwise. So a True answer asserts that evolution did only happen in the past; which is false because evolution has never happened.

 

A False answer asserts that evolution is indeed continuing to happen now; which is false because evolution has not happened, is not happening, and never will happen.

 

Man beating wife. Get it?



#18 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,002 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 13 June 2017 - 05:18 PM

Look, I'm a stubborn old coot, and I refuse to answer unanswerable questions ... as Mike Summer said, how do you answer questions about something that never happened.

 

Virtually all of the questions in the quiz I linked to deal with micro evolution, not macro evolution, but it isn't a cake walk either.

 

I didn't like the first quiz either due to the religious questions, although the correct answer to the first question is "false"; it asked if evolution of major groups is an "observed fact", and it isn't - it's inferred from the data like transitional fossils and DNA. So you actually got that question right!

 

The second quiz is more straight and you got 100% which is good.



#19 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 899 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 13 June 2017 - 05:21 PM

A False answer asserts that evolution is indeed continuing to happen now; which is false because evolution has not happened, is not happening, and never will happen.

the appearance of a novel reptilian organ over the course of 15 to 20 generations is proof evolution is happening now.
furthermore, it's proof evolution IS NOT a "gradual accumulation of random mutations" paradigm.

#20 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,239 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 14 June 2017 - 02:12 AM

 

 

Dave: It's a real thing. M the w would probably know the name of the "When did you quit beating your wife?" fallacy

 

Begging the question fallacy, Dave.

 

EXAMPLE; "Higher unemployment is indeed what we are dealing with lately as the other party mentions, and what we have seen for a while now because the last government increased cuts to jobs by shutting down libraries and all sorts of places."

 

The begging the question is committed when rather than arguing the case, the case is granted surreptitiously within a statement. A more overt example would be your pretty good example of asking someone when they stopped doing something. A more clever BTQ is if it sounds like the case is proven, but really isn't. Those cuts to those jobs happened in fact, a long time ago, so the present cause for unemployment can't be the last government so it's just a way of blaming the other party and removing focus from themselves. I have seen this last one in real life, the previous PM David Cameron, always would refer to what the previous labour government done wrong, even if those things done wrong were done five years or more ago so as it would be taken for granted that the true cause of the poor running of the country would be the previous government rather than his government. 

 

I like Stephen Meyer's example the best even though it's not the best example of the BTQ;

 

" Oh dear I have fallen into this hole, I need a ladder to get out. I will just pop home and get a ladder then bring it back and use it to climb out of this hole. "

 

I like that because it's the kind of brain-fart we all occasionally commit. :D Sometimes the BTQ can be committed unwittingly because of sloppy thinking. 

 

You can also get question-begging-epithets too, certain words which themselves aren't arguments but they are just emotive words designed to influence people and manipulate them into believing what they are saying. This is a very good example of that;

 

"Well, yes I understand why as a Christian you must follow the Christian gospel but the point is you're out of touch because we know most people these days would accept h*m*s*xuality and that homophobia is really no different from racism."

 

BTQ = homophobia, which is a deliberate attempt to LABEL someone as having hatred for G*y people. Notice we have to take it for granted that the Christian has this genuine hatred/fear? A popular example is people not in favour of letting immigrants in will be called, "racist". This is basically an ad hominem attack in it's true form but also it's unethical to describe someone as a racist if you don't know they are, because it is immoral to call someone guilty of a pretty bad thing, without knowing or caring whether they really are that thing which it seems to me would require telepathy on their part. 

 

But can you spot the more subtle question-begging terminology in my example?

 

It was, "out of touch", and, "these days", because this implies only modern wisdom is valid. (Argumentum Ad Novitatem)

 

Attached File  novelty.jpg   50.42KB   0 downloads






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users