Jump to content


Photo

Do You Understand Evolution Quizzes


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#61 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,957 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 16 June 2017 - 02:42 AM

 

 

Piasan: 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

 

Yeah if that is Goku's one, that was a tough one. I only got 65% because I've been exposed to evolution more in the past from people who are more educated/fanatical, in the finer details of it. I can tell you now though, I thought I would get 40% or less on that one. That is the most fantastic low score I have ever got on a test. Lol. Usually I would be disappointed with anything below 85%.



#62 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,957 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 16 June 2017 - 03:01 AM

My test is routed now, I might as well give the answers. My own fault. (Highlight the answers which are below each question as some people may still want to take the test to know where they are. Remember it isn't a test of intellect this test, it just reveals your level of education in evolution. If you read up on evolution for a week then take it, that isn't cheating as the test only ascertains where your knowledge level is WHEN you took the test. If your knowledge level is higher in one week, then it's higher.)

 

THE EVO MIKEY QUIZ:

 

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

Echolocation in bats/birds, eyes..anything that has allegedly converged upon the same type. Homologous features come from divergence, homoplastic features come from convergence.(purportedly) (preposterous)

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

Mutations

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

Mike's brain was ungplugged from the matrix when he invented this question.

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

No. Evolution has no prescience. (preposterous again) :P

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

No. That would be affirmation of the consequent.

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

Yes. The modus tollens can break a tally of one million confirmation evidences in favour of a theory. As Einstein said, "a hundred experiments won't prove me right but one can prove me wrong."

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

Inductive reasoning.

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.

Exaptation.

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--- ----

Gene flow.

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

Archaeoptical-tricks.

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

Ambulocetus, rhodocetus, etc..(all debunked and even Gingerich acknowledges it)

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

Amphibians.

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?

No. Fitness is determined by how well an organism is adapted to it's environment, it's a misconception that evolution theory would regard modern species as more special in some way because a chronological value is unimportant.

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

Stasis. 

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

Share an ancestor.

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

No. It claims humans had ancestors that were not human, it at no time states that humans were ever 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)

No. s@x for mammals would be a shared, derived characteristic.

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?

No. This depends on an argument-from-silence, the parent may have existed previously but wasn't fossilised.

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

No. This is extraneous information to expounding the ToE, even if the matter is related in some way, evolution doesn't explicitly explain individiual scenarios, it only explains the various paramaters of evolution as an abstract.

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

Confirmation.

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

No.

22. Give an example of a vestigial feature.

Tail bone, whale hips, etc..

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

Mutations.

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

Both.

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

No. He presented it with the one mechanism of NS, he would now 100% likely accept mutations at least.



#63 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 16 June 2017 - 06:09 AM

"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..

i don't think i have presented anything by koonin where he mentions the possibility of tagged transposons, a transposon code or a molecular code or a sandbox concept or a restart scenario.

 

"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)

i'm getting the distinct feeling that it's way worse than that blitz.
just take a good hard look at ayala and how his voice was squelched to get a feel for what i mean, and you can take it to the bank that this isn't the only instance.

from koonin:
The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution (Box 1). So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone.
- The Origin at 150 is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight.htm

#64 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,957 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 16 June 2017 - 06:43 AM

Year 2045; Evolution version 4.

 

"we knew it happened, we just didn't know how!"

 

Year 2170; Evolution version 24

 

"we knew it happened, we just didn't know how!"

 

If it doesn't look like a duck quack like a duck, act like a duck or have the anatomy of a duck, it's probably not a duck. 

 

"we know it's a duck we just don't know how."

 

Translation; we know it's evolution we just don't know it's evolution.

 

Lol



#65 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 16 June 2017 - 08:18 AM

Year 2045; Evolution version 4.
 
"we knew it happened, we just didn't know how!"
 
Year 2170; Evolution version 24
 
"we knew it happened, we just didn't know how!"
 
If it doesn't look like a duck quack like a duck, act like a duck or have the anatomy of a duck, it's probably not a duck. 
 
"we know it's a duck we just don't know how."
 
Translation; we know it's evolution we just don't know it's evolution.
 
Lol

this is basically why the public distrusts science so much.
it's constantly refining what it perceives things to be.

people like arrowsmith certainly aren't helping the situation any.

#66 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,957 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 16 June 2017 - 09:58 AM

Or Dorkins. ;)



#67 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

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

Posted 16 June 2017 - 03:43 PM

Or Dorkins. ;)


I pray that Slick Rick will have a road to Damascus moment and do a 180 turn and seek the truth instead of promoting delusional lies..
His dog and pony show has been clearly exposed as having ZERO to do with Science.. He is merely promoting his God hating philosophy and hiding like a coward behind what he calls "Science" but is only Science fiction..

I heard that the 76 year old charlatan had a stroke last year..
How much time do you think you have left to do your dirty deeds Richard? 10 Years?


"Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" 1 Tim 6:20


Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Gal 6:7

#68 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,130 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 24 June 2017 - 04:24 AM

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? ...

.
The term "AbioDarwinism" was not used when I posted here regularly a few years ago. It has always been my impression that Darwinism was silent on the subject of the origin of first life on Earth.

#69 what if

what if

    Member

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

Posted 24 June 2017 - 05:19 PM

The term "AbioDarwinism" was not used when I posted here regularly a few years ago. It has always been my impression that Darwinism was silent on the subject of the origin of first life on Earth.

correct, darwin never indicated what the origin was.
whether single or multiple.

glansdorf seems to think the origin was metabolically diverse, and this couldn't be a single organism.
koonin seems to think phyla arrived here radially from such a source.
there is a very real possibility that each animal phyla had its own origin.

#70 aelyn

aelyn

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • France

Posted 25 June 2017 - 01:01 AM

there is a very real possibility that each animal phyla had its own origin.


Do you mean by that that animal phyla don't descend from a common ancestor?

#71 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,957 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 25 June 2017 - 02:27 AM

The problem with abiogenesis and biological evolution being regarded as separate things, is that abiogenesis was invented solely for evolution theory.

 

So logically before you say, "they're separate." Yes, as explanations of two different things they are regarded as separate, but what you need to ask yourself is this - can abiogenesis produce a giraffe?

 

No. So what does it allegedly produce? A common ancestor. What is a primordial common ancestor? Do you see one anywhere on earth? No. 

 

So logically where does a common ancestor come from? Where does the idea come from? What reduces a giraffe, in time, to a mere primordial blob?

 

.....You guessed it.

 

Sure, a Macdonalds burger isn't the same as a Macdonalds fries, but you can only get them from the same place, you can't get them outside of Macdonalds. If abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution, then surely that means that I can argue that abiogenesis can produce giraffes and trees.

 

 

Abiogenesis is an additional story to prop up Darwinism. Darwin argued it himself, he suggested in some warm pond a protein sprang up. Variations of that story have persisted.

 

No wonder evolutionists love to separate the two, for if they amalgamate them (and they're pretty much the same story) they end up with something even more absurdly unbelievable, that given enough time a frog will spring forth from mud. ;)






1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Blitzking