Do you understand evolution?

[Real Sorceror]

I stumbled upon this http://www.christianforums.com/t3273648-a-simple-test.html over at Christian Forums. The science heads at CF are trying to devise a test for Creationist to take to see if they really understand the Theory of Evolution. I'm posting thier most current version here as a "test test run". Feel free to take the quiz or give suggestions as to how it could be improved.

1) Do organisms pass on traits to their offspring?

2) Does more than one type of environment exist?

3) Can the genetic material for an individual be different from that of others in the same population?

4) Do you agree that the genes of a creatures has an effect on the traits of that creature?

5) If you answered yes to 1, 2, 3 and 4, do you agree that some creatures in a population will be better suited to any specific envoronment?

6) If you answered yes to 5, do you agree that creatures that are better-suited to their environment survive in greater numbers than poorly-suited ones?

7) Do you agree that dead creatures do not reproduce?

8) If you answered yes to 6 and 7, do you agree that creatures better suited to thier environment tend to (statistically) have more offspring?

9) If you answered yes to 8, do you agree that as the older and weaker members of the population dies off, the population is left better suited to its envoronment on average (statistically speaking)?

10) Can new traits be introduced into a population via mutation?

11) If you ansered yes to 10, do you agree that the new traits introduced by nonfatal mutations can be negative, posive or neutral depending on the environment of the creature carrying the mutation?

12) If you answered yes to 11, do you agree that mutations changes the creature carrying the mutations chances of survival?

13) If you answered yes to 6, 7 and 12, do you agree that a creature with an enhanced chance of survival wil have more offspring (statistically speaking)?

14) If you answered yes to 13, do you agree that over time, mutations causing positive traits for a certain envoronment will tend to spread through the population?

15) If you answered yes to 2 and 14, do you agree that two identical populations placed in different envoronments will tend to change in different ways?

16) Do you agree that two populations with genes that differ enough will not be compatible for mating?

17) If you answered yes to 15 and 16, do you agree that populations in different environments can become different species?

 

[Valjean]

You set up an interesting algorithm. I like it.

 

[doppelganger]

It's not very carefully worded. Take the first one for example:

1) Do organisms pass on traits to their offspring?

Not all organisms have what we would consider "offspring." Many unicellular organism divide creating two new organisms. Are those both "offspring"?

Also, I assume that the answer to this question is supposed to be 'yes,' but technically, organisms don't pass "traits." That was LaMarck's idea and it is not scientifically accepted. They pass copies of their genetic material that generally will find expression as "traits" as the organism made according to that copy develops, depending on how it combines with a gamete from another organism (in sexual reproduction), damage or errors during replication or division, and environmental factors as well.

 

[Real Sorceror]

It's not very carefully worded. Take the first one for example:

1) Do organisms pass on traits to their offspring?

Not all organisms have what we would consider "offspring." Many unicellular organism divide creating two new organisms. Are those both "offspring"?

Also, I assume that the answer to this question is supposed to be 'yes,' but technically, organisms don't pass "traits." That was LaMarck's idea and it is not scientifically accepted. They pass copies of their genetic material that generally will find expression as "traits" as the organism made according to that copy develops, depending on how it combines with a gamete from another organism (in sexual reproduction), damage or errors during replication or division, and environmental factors as well.

And thats exactly why I posted it here, so we can refine it. However, keep in mind that we'd like to use this on a wide variety of people who my not be as well versed in biology 101 as you. So yes, the test is purposefully generic and simplified.

 

[doppelganger]

I would reword number one as "In sexual reproduction, does an organism inherit a propensity for certain traits from its parents?"

 

[ch'ang]

7) Do you agree that dead creatures do not reproduce?

Best question in the test.

 

[Real Sorceror]

Best question in the test.

Yup. Alot of this is very "duh" stuff, but I'm sure people ignore "minor details" like that all the time.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

7) Do you agree that dead creatures do not reproduce?

Hmmmm...could you be more specific about what you mean by dead?

 

[Real Sorceror]

Hmmmm...could you be more specific about what you mean by dead?

As in they have physically deceased.

 

[JerryL]

Hmmmm...could you be more specific about what you mean by dead?

Pining for the fjiords

 

[sandy whitelinger]

As in they have physically deceased.

But mentally they're ok?

 

[BVZ]

For the purpose of this test, thinking of the two resulting organisms after the original has split as offspring of the original makes sense. (The fact that the original died when giving birth to identical twins do not concern me.

While I agree that defining death is important when using 'death' as a concept, in this case we want to test if people understand evolution, not how intricate thier philosophical understanding of life and death is.

But thanks for the comments, keep them coming!

anda: <---- what is this bear doing? !!?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

anda: <---- what is this bear doing? !!?

Setting off an improvised explosive device?

 

[logician]

Evolutions happens quickly (punctuated equilbria) when ecosytems are severly damaged by some disaster, because may niches are opened up to be filled by whatever life survives the disaster. Many chances for reproductive isolation occur in this scenariom which creates many new species over a short time(geologically speaking). Under systems in stasis, evolution occurs at a more leisurely rate, if at all for some species.

 

[robtex]

I am seeing alot of you guys cherrypicking problems you have with various numbers or stating exceptions to certain rules. I want to point out two things about the op that I think some of you may be missing.

1) It shows how emperical, evidencable data can be used to derive future premises and conclusions. It shows how to take a known and produce more knowns out of it. For instance, dead creatures cannot reproduced may sound funny but subsequent data later on be can found and interpreted based on this fact.

2) It shows the difference in methodogy in discovering the system of evolution vs being revealed the systems of ID and creationism. Evolution is emperical and evidencable whereas ID and creationism are faith-based theories.

What this means is the idea "believing in evolution" is incorrect. If you reject evolution you do so by rejecting the evidence used to support its proposition. Faith is not a componet in your decision. Acceptance and rejection of the data provided is.
ID and creationsim by contrast, are faith-based theories which means, if you accept or reject them it is because you either have a belief or lack of belief in the theory. Evidence and emperical evaluation is not part of the decision making process.

What I hope is gained from the survey is the difference in accepting a proposition on empherical data and evidence vs accepting a theory based on faith.

 

[michel]

I am seeing alot of you guys cherrypicking problems you have with various numbers or stating exceptions to certain rules. I want to point out two things about the op that I think some of you may be missing.

1) It shows how emperical, evidencable data can be used to derive future premises and conclusions. It shows how to take a known and produce more knowns out of it. For instance, dead creatures cannot reproduced may sound funny but subsequent data later on be can found and interpreted based on this fact.

2) It shows the difference in methodogy in discovering the system of evolution vs being revealed the systems of ID and creationism. Evolution is emperical and evidencable whereas ID and creationism are faith-based theories.

What this means is the idea "believing in evolution" is incorrect. If you reject evolution you do so by rejecting the evidence used to support its proposition. Faith is not a componet in your decision. Acceptance and rejection of the data provided is.
ID and creationsim by contrast, are faith-based theories which means, if you accept or reject them it is because you either have a belief or lack of belief in the theory. Evidence and emperical evaluation is not part of the decision making process.

What I hope is gained from the survey is the difference in accepting a proposition on empherical data and evidence vs accepting a theory based on faith.

Nicely said.

 

[My name is Wanda]

You might want to be careful of the word mutation, because some people might think of X-men - as in, "because of my mutation I can now fly and turn my hands into t-bone steaks, and my sister can levitate."

Perhaps you could call them "small genetic abnormalities" or something. It's the same thing, but it doesn't have an additional pop culture reference. It might also give the survey-taker an idea of the scale on which you're talking.

 

[Valjean]

The survey is clearly setting up a series of logical syllogisms. It forces one to reduce evolution theory to black-and-white mathematical problems.