Jump to content


Photo

Do You Understand Evolution Quizzes


  • Please log in to reply
152 replies to this topic

#41 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 15 June 2017 - 02:37 AM

Goku didn't understand this question and I evaluated his score as him getting it wrong but looking back one thing that annoys me in these quizzes is that sometimes the questions aren't precise enough so I shall re-word it because with his knowledge I do think he knows the answer, and it wasn't a trick question, it was an easy one;

 

19. If humans help to preserve an endangered species, is this a matter of the theoretics of evolution theory?

19. If humans help to preserve an endangered species, are these actions something that the evolution theory specifically and explicitally tries to address as part of the theory of how life evolves?



#42 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 15 June 2017 - 02:53 AM

Goku didn't understand this question and I evaluated his score as him getting it wrong but looking back one thing that annoys me in these quizzes is that sometimes the questions aren't precise enough so I shall re-word it because with his knowledge I do think he knows the answer, and it wasn't a trick question, it was an easy one;

 

19. If humans help to preserve an endangered species, is this a matter of the theoretics of evolution theory?

19. If humans help to preserve an endangered species, are these actions something that the evolution theory specifically and explicitally tries to address as part of the theory of how life evolves?

My answer stays "yes".

 

Sorry Goku I had a brain fart, I meant to say "species is to species as --------is to genera". Don't know how I didn't see that, Lol. I will just cut out question two and give the new scores in the next post. It's a crap question that anyway, someone must have possessed me for that question and used my hands to type it. ;)

Is it still farting? ;-)

My answer to that question would be "genera". (as the words are identical)



#43 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 15 June 2017 - 03:03 AM

 

 

Fjuri: Is it still farting? ;-)

 

As long as I don't follow through by continuing to make mistakes. :D

 

 

 

Fjuri: My earlier answer shows that I understood the question as intended though:

3. Species is to speciation as _________ is to genera.

 

I cut that question out anyway. Although the words are the same the plural for species is the same as the singular, but for the singular with genera, it's "genus".

 

You didn't get a bad score anyway, the test is quite difficult because knowing obscure information about a topic shows a more in depth knowledge.

 

I don't think many of us here have a scientists level of knowledge about evolution anyway. I can tell from peoples posts that really only Goku would seek to study it to an in depth level, but others like me, Piasan and you, would admit it isn't our number one subject.

 

I suppose where I am going in this thread is towards this final question; SHOULD creationists have the same knowledge of evolution theory as evolutonists? It seems to me from the reaction from Mike S, What If and Dave, that annoyance of false information perceived by creationists, can stop us from reading any more, which may be why some lack knowledge of evolution, it may be because they get that feeling when they are reading, of a kind of OUTRAGE because they spot falsehoods and basically say to themselves; "this is garbage, I am wasting my time here".

 

That is my preliminary theory. But my test has only been done by a few people, it isn't statistically viable. It would be great if everyone on EFF could do it, then we could have an interesting statistic for our forum. This interests me because I am a "sad creationist". ;) :D



#44 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 15 June 2017 - 04:22 AM

I suppose where I am going in this thread is towards this final question; SHOULD creationists have the same knowledge of evolution theory as evolutonists? It seems to me from the reaction from Mike S, What If and Dave, that annoyance of false information perceived by creationists, can stop us from reading any more, which may be why some lack knowledge of evolution, it may be because they get that feeling when they are reading, of a kind of OUTRAGE because they spot falsehoods and basically say to themselves; "this is garbage, I am wasting my time here".

It is only important for those who are in a position where they can affect others with their beliefs.

- Legislates should either trust the scientific community in their efforts to understand reality, or they should learn the issues involved themselves.

- Teachers who would like to educate others (I actually include homeschool parents here) should learn what societies best understanding of reality is.

- Doctors/Biologists/... anyone with a profession closely related to biology should have a good understanding of what the scientific community is stating about their understanding of reality.

- Apologists should learn to understand the correct interpretation of the theory of evolution so they no longer spread falsehoods with regard to it (or get caught in a lie).

 

The rest should only learn about it when they care about the truth.

 

Please remember the theory of evolution is mankind's best endeavor attempt to understand reality based on the facts alone (so, excluding the Bible). If you don't care about mankind's best endeavor to understand something, you hardly care about the truth at all.



#45 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 15 June 2017 - 04:33 AM

 

 

Fjuri:  If you don't care about mankind's best endeavor to understand something, you hardly care about the truth at all.

 

I regard that as a false statement of logical positivism. To think man's answers are more reliable than the intelligence that clearly designed life, is absurd, but this isn't the place for that debate. The construction of an eyeball to see, is reality, so you use "reality" as an epithet, because evolution isn't real if you term it, "real". 

 

I suggest you take it to a thread you could make about this issue but I think you're trying to make it into the usual false dichotomy of, "you're either on the side of reality and science, or not", which for me is binary thinking.

 

We already know all of the type of rhetoric that evolutionists use to pretend that creationism is unreality and your position is reality, I don't believe you have studied that issue enough because we can provably show the difference between operational, testable science, and historical hypotheses which rely on circumstantial evidence which doesn't prove anything about reality, and only reveals just how limited human beings are in their knowledge, so then why rely on human beings that make the absurd guess that lightning zapped sludge later turning into giraffes, trees and people, is "reality". If that's reality then Peter Pan exists.

 

:P


  • Mike Summers likes this

#46 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 15 June 2017 - 04:45 AM

 

 

 

Fjuri:  If you don't care about mankind's best endeavor to understand something, you hardly care about the truth at all.

 

I regard that as a false statement of logical positivism. To think man's answers are more reliable than the intelligence that clearly designed life, is absurd, but this isn't the place for that debate. The construction of an eyeball to see, is reality, so you use "reality" as an epithet, because evolution isn't real if you term it, "real". 

 

I suggest you take it to a thread you could make about this issue but I think you're trying to make it into the usual false dichotomy of, "you're either on the side of reality and science, or not", which for me is binary thinking.

 

We already know all of the type of rhetoric that evolutionists use to pretend that creationism is unreality and your position is reality, I don't believe you have studied that issue enough because we can provably show the difference between operational, testable science, and historical hypotheses which rely on circumstantial evidence which doesn't prove anything about reality, and only reveals just how limited human beings are in their knowledge, so then why rely on human beings that make the absurd guess that lightning zapped sludge later turning into giraffes, trees and people, is "reality". If that's reality then Peter Pan exists.

At no point did I say that creationism is unreality and my position is reality. I suggest a re-read of my post. I only answered a question you asked, but if you don't want to delve into it atm, I'm fine with that.



#47 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 15 June 2017 - 06:11 AM

 

 

Fjuri: At no point did I say that creationism is unreality and my position is reality. I suggest a re-read of my post. I only answered a question you asked, but if you don't want to delve into it atm, I'm fine with that.

 

It seems to me there is just a lot of hostility in your words in that post. A few sessions with Mike Summers are in order, as it seems you've told yourself we're the bad guys, and liars, and all sorts of things, when really we just believe very earnestly that God created the world.



#48 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 15 June 2017 - 06:16 AM

 

 

 

Fjuri: At no point did I say that creationism is unreality and my position is reality. I suggest a re-read of my post. I only answered a question you asked, but if you don't want to delve into it atm, I'm fine with that.

 

It seems to me there is just a lot of hostility in your words in that post. A few sessions with Mike Summers are in order, as it seems you've told yourself we're the bad guys, and liars, and all sorts of things, when really we just believe very earnestly that God created the world.

 

It seems to me you didn't like the answer I gave. You're projecting hostility since it is purely on your side. I didn't claim any of the sorts (bad guys, liars etc.), maybe should reflect a bit on why you're inserting hostility in my post.. :)

I wouldn't advice a session with Mike Summers though...



#49 Dave

Dave

    Member

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

Posted 15 June 2017 - 08:19 AM

I suppose where I am going in this thread is towards this final question; SHOULD creationists have the same knowledge of evolution theory as evolutonists? It seems to me from the reaction from Mike S, What If and Dave, that annoyance of false information perceived by creationists, can stop us from reading any more, which may be why some lack knowledge of evolution, it may be because they get that feeling when they are reading, of a kind of OUTRAGE because they spot falsehoods and basically say to themselves; "this is garbage, I am wasting my time here".

I think it behooves everyone to have a working knowledge of the operational science side of the study of evolution. As I've said in previous posts, evolutionists and creationists have exactly the same evidence to work with. There is much knowledge to be gained by digging up and examining fossils, by delving further and deeper into the workings of a cell, and by revealing the DNA code.

 

Where evolutionists and creationists part ways is in how they approach the historical science aspect of the study of evolution. Without actual empirical, scientifically provable facts, evolutionists believe their evidence tells a story ... a story that by their design absolutely cannot include a spiritual element. Materialism is their entire reality.

 

Creationists, on the other hand, acknowledge a reality that includes the spiritual element, and have a more complete story to tell ... and know they don't have to waste time trying to tell a story that is missing the biggest plot element of that story. The material aspect of evidence plus the spiritual element make up their reality.

 

So, which scientist has a more complete grasp of reality?

 

I'm fond of saying that for scientists to try to interpret historical evidence without acknowledging the spiritual element is like trying to do science with half their brains tied behind their back.

 

I know what the counter argument is: "But science is science, and spirituality is religion."

 

Science without all of reality is only half-science. If materialistic-only scientists choose to reject all of reality by ignoring the spiritual element, it is their choice. It's sad, and a huge waste of resources to be constantly chasing down endless rabbit holes. But, hey, that's life.

 

Mike's quizzes actually were very useful in illustrating the core differences between what the two camps think and in starting an interesting and thoughtful dialogue about it.



#50 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 15 June 2017 - 09:09 AM

Thanks Dave, a thoughtful post.

 

Fjuri's post =  :burp: 

 

;)



#51 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 15 June 2017 - 09:11 AM

Thanks Dave, a thoughtful post.

 

Fjuri's post =  :burp: 

 

;)

Quit it Mike. 



#52 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 15 June 2017 - 12:06 PM

Blizking, would you participate in Mike the Wiz's Quiz?


Why.. Are my arguments against the myth of AbioDarwinism not compelling enough for you already? I will take the test as soon as you find someone who can answer my simple question asking for a Plausible or Feasible ORDER for Man's "Ancestors'" 10 Interdependent Vital Organs.. Put it out there on all the Atheists message boards.. Get me an answer.. This is not something that I copied and pasted from AIG.. This is my own material written by me.. As soon as you stop pretending that no one has to give a plausible order, and everyone should just believe it EVEN THOUGH NO ONE CAN EVEN MAKE A CARTOON DRAWING OF IT.. I will take the test.. Start posting at Talk Origins (If you dare to risk being called a "Creationist Sympathizer")..


So, until you do, we are taking about pure religious belief
(Not just any religious belief BTW) A religious belief that VIOLATES several scientific laws like SLOT, Biogenesis, Cause and effect, Information, Etc. YET cant even make a cartoon drawing of how their fantasy supposedly occured..

THEREFORE

It is not science.. It is science fiction. And if I have to study Scince Fiction.. H.G. Wells and Jules Verne are MUCH MORE INTERESTING..


"In conclusion, evolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory."

(Dr. David N. Menton, PhD in Biology from Brown University)

#53 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 15 June 2017 - 12:18 PM

There isn't any need for specific people to take the test so if BK is being asked to take the test, I also request an evolutionist to take it who clearly isn't going to. (I won't name names but it's obvious that some evos here would get 50% or less.) "What If" has a slightly different area of study of evolution and comes at the thing from his own unique angle so I don't regard his score as meaning all that much since he clearly does know and study things a lot of us don't know.



#54 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 15 June 2017 - 01:09 PM

Fjuri's evolution test:

1. According to the theory of evolution, are you a fish?



#55 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 15 June 2017 - 02:19 PM

 I'm efishient.


  • piasan likes this

#56 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 15 June 2017 - 02:54 PM

"What If" has a slightly different area of study of evolution and comes at the thing from his own unique angle . . . .

it isn't unique.
i've provided respected sources for everything i've said except my sandbox concept.
and i'll bet 10 to 1 evolution uses it.

koonin on orthodoxy:
However, I am afraid that, if our goal as evolutionary biologists is to avoid providing any grist for the ID mill, we should simply claim that Darwin, "in principle", solved all the problems of the origin of biological complexity in his eye story, and only minor details remain to be filled in. Actually, I think the position of some ultra-darwinists is pretty close to that. However, I believe that this is totally counter-productive and such a notion is outright false. And, the ID folks are clever in their own perverse way, they see through such false simplicity and seize on it. I think we (students of evolution) should openly admit that emergence of new levels of complexity is a complex problem and should try to work out solutions some of which could be distinctly non-orthodox
-koonin

#57 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 15 June 2017 - 03:07 PM

 I'm efishient.

oh man, that was too clever dude.
perfect play on words, 5 stars!

#58 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,705 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 15 June 2017 - 10:35 PM

I really hadn't planned to do this but......  I got a 92 on the first quiz.  On the second, it was 80.  The third, I quit after about 15 questions or so

THE EVO MIKEY QUIZ:

 

1. If an example of homology is the pentadactyl limb, then give an example of analogue features shared/homoplasy.

2. Which of the two mechanisms according to evolution theory (mutations and naturals selection), is responsible for providing new genetic information?

3. Species is to speciation as _________ is to genera.

4. If an ape is more arboreal is it progressing towards bipedal? (yes or no)

5. If confirmation evidence for macro evolution is a transitional form, are transitional forms proof of evolution according to how science operates?

1)  The bills of platypus and ducks.

2)  Mutations.

3)  Dropped by mike.

4)  No.

5)  Evidence, not proof.

 

 

6. If one hundred experiments don't prove you right, can one experiment prove you wrong or only many?

7. If we have a tally of evidence to support a theory, what type of logical reasoning is this regarded as?

8. If a feature/characteristic which is now used for insulation is later used for flight (feathers) this might be an example of e--------n.

9. What is the terminology if information is reintroduced into a gene pool by individuals of  a group which has only diverged from the main population recently? g--- ----

10. Give the name of an alleged fossil species for bird evolution.

6)   Yes.

7)   Inductive

8)   exaptation

9)   gene flow

10) archaeopteryx

 

 

11. Give the name of an alleged fossil species for whale evolution.

12. Mammals were said to have evolved from reptiles, what then did reptiles evolve from?

13. Does evolution theory state that a more modern, surviving species today is more evolutionary fit than an ancestor was, which we allegedly evolved from?

14. What is another name for normalised selection? s-----.

15. Did chimps share a common ancestor with humans or are chimps an ancestor of humans?

11)  ambulocetus

12)  amphibians

13)  no

14)  stabilizing selection

15)  common ancestor

 

 

16. Does evolution theory claim that humans were once not human?

17. To say evolution has to individually explain how each s@x arose for horses, and also for humans and bunnies, is a good understanding of what evolution says. (yes or no)

18. If we find a fossil which pre-dates it's progenitor/ancestor, is it correct to presume that this is comparable to a son being found to be older than his father?

19. If humans help to preserve an endangered species, are these actions something that the evolution theory specifically and explicitally tries to address as part of the theory of how life evolves?

20. There are two types of main evidence we can categorise generally for science, one is falsification evidence the other is c----------- evidence.

16)  Yes.

17)  No.

18)  No.  It's possible a son died before his father.

19)  Yes.  We view it as a symbiotic relationship.

20)  confirmation

 

 

21. If mammals evolved from reptiles, did mammals evolve from crocodiles?

22. Give an example of a vestigial feature.

23. Which mechanism of evolution would be regarded as random?

24. Which is factual? Mutations or natural selection, or neither or both?

25. If Darwin was around today, would he accept evolution theory as he presented it back then?

21)  No

22)  Appendix

23)  mutation

24)  both.

25)  With current information, he would modify it.



#59 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 800 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 16 June 2017 - 01:07 AM

"What If" has a slightly different area of study of evolution and comes at the thing from his own unique angle . . . .

it isn't unique.i've provided respected sources for everything i've said except my sandbox concept.and i'll bet 10 to 1 evolution uses it.koonin on orthodoxy:However, I am afraid that, if our goal as evolutionary biologists is to avoid providing any grist for the ID mill, we should simply claim that Darwin, "in principle", solved all the problems of the origin of biological complexity in his eye story, and only minor details remain to be filled in. Actually, I think the position of some ultra-darwinists is pretty close to that. However, I believe that this is totally counter-productive and such a notion is outright false. And, the ID folks are clever in their own perverse way, they see through such false simplicity and seize on it. I think we (students of evolution) should openly admit that emergence of new levels of complexity is a complex problem and should try to work out solutions some of which could be distinctly non-orthodox-koonin


"it isn't unique"

Some might argue that a strict paradigm that requires every single concept to be viewed through the A Priori prism of The Gran Koonin's (PBUH) inclinations could certainly qualify as "unique" in some circles..


"Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation."

(Professor Phillip E. Johnson)

#60 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 16 June 2017 - 02:35 AM

21 out of 24 Piasan, = 87.5%






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users