Take The Evolution Test

[debrand]

I'm surprised my favorite question is not on here: why are there still monkeys? :angry-banghead:

If I had a nickel for every time I've gotten the stink-eye because that question didn't stump me :lol:

argh. I was surprised that question wasn't there also.

[Terrie]

And, of course, they never think about the fact that it would super easy to come up with a similar list of questions about creationism.

1) Where did God come from?

[slickcat79]

And, of course, they never think about the fact that it would super easy to come up with a similar list of questions about creationism.

I had a similar thought. You could come up with so many corresponding questions:

1. How do you make a woman from a man's rib?

2. How do you explain fossils that have been dated to millions of years old if the earth is only 6,000 years old? How do you explain societies with written records that have existed longer than that?

3. If god made everything perfect, why do creatures ever become extinct?

4. Why do we have organs like the tailbone, appendix, tonsils, wisdom teeth, etc. if we don't need them, and in fact, they can hurt us?

5. If we all evolved from the same 2 people, why do we not show obvious effects of inbreeding? Why did we not die out as a species thousands of years ago when there was obviously not enough genetic material to sustain us?

6. If everything requires a creator, who or what created god?

And so on, and so forth...

But of course they would just say that goddidit, with his heavenly magic or whatever.

[Handmaiden of Dog]

:roll: Oh the eyeball question. This is one of those "nuggets" of Creationist wisdom that is supposed to stop evolutionists in their tracks. "The eye has to have all of its parts before it can function. If you take the retina, the lens, the blood vessels, the nerves, or any other part away from the eye it can not function at all."

Wrong. Eyes can function in a very primitive state but since Creationists do not study evolution or the history of biology, they would not know that. The first "eye" was simply places in the skin with photoreceptors that could sense light and dark. Time passes, evolution occurs, and the fleshy spot develops into a sunken cup to capture more light, crowd in more photoreceptors making a primitive retina. These are called Pit Eyes and are still found in some snails today.

Time passes, the evolutionary process occurs, and the pit opening becomes smaller and smaller until it only has a tiny hole like a pinhole camera. Some creatures today still have Pinhole Camera eyes.

Next the hole developed a thin covering to protect the eye from contamination. Yes, now the eye has a lens.

Etc. etc. There was a great documentary on the BBC I think (I seem to remember Sir David Attenborough) about the evolution of the eye. I don't think it was part of Life on Earth (which is one of my favorite television shows and something every child should see) but I do think it was part of a larger series. At any rate the evolution of the eye is a topic that is fascinating and well-researched. In other words, Creationists should STFU.

[Minerva]

Time for the next question!

3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.

I'm not sure what the point of asking your teacher this question is, given that anyone accredited to teach biology will know offhand that these false assumptions are a figment of creationists' imaginations. But I've taken the liberty to copy the answers from the site's Exhibit 13:

That the atmosphere has had the same (all instead of Carbon 14) concentration in the past as now. Who knows? This is a false assumption.

The first sentence of this point isn't even coherent. Same concentration of what? The atmosphere can't just have a concentration, you have to tell us what this concentration is of. So much fail. There are many different things they could be trying to say, but I'm going to assume they mean "That the atmospheric concentration of Carbon 14 has been constant this whole time." Well science doesn't assume that at all. We know levels of C14 have fluctuated over the years, and the dates obtained by C14 dating are therefore corrected for those fluctuations using a calibration curve based the known deviations for each period. These known deviations are obtained by using C14 dating on samples whose age can be dated using more than one method. We have enough such samples to give us a consistent and accurate curve. This doesn't mean there isn't uncertainty on the results of C14 dating, but it's very small compared to the length of time C14 dating covers. (I found this in 2 minutes on Wikipedia, btw.) And as anyone who's taken grade 11 physics can tell you, it's a mark of good science when the uncertainty on a number is acknowledged, calculated and provided, and that's what is done with C14 dating.

That the production of parent isotopes has been constant. Again, who knows? This is a false assumption.

All this "who knows" bullshit is getting on my nerves. 30 seconds and google is all it takes to find out "who knows" - the intellectual laziness of whoever runs this website is astounding.

The production of parent isotopes doesn't need to be constant for any radiometric dating method to work. See, there are two main types. Carbon 14 is the first, and I've already explained why this argument doesn't work on it. The second includes the rest of the techniques, and they are done on rocks. You don't need to know the original proportion of of radioactive vs. non radioactive parent atoms in the environment to use radiometric dating on rocks, therefore you don't need to assume it's been constant over the years. You measure the number of radioactive parent atoms, the number of daughter atoms, and the number of "daughter" atoms that aren't radiogenic. You do this for many different minerals in the rock. Then you plot a graph where the X axis is (parent atoms)/(non-radiogenic daughter atoms) and the Y axis is (radiogenic daughter atoms/(non-radiogenic daughter atoms) and there's one data point per sample. The slope of this graph is plugged into the standard half life formula and the age of the rock is found. This is called isochron dating, and can be cross-checked and verified by using different isotopes. This website explains it better than I can: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html.

That the original ratio and amounts of the isotope in the fossil or rock is known. This is based on current processes and assumes the rate of absorption was the same in the past. This is a false assumption.

First sentence: exact same point as above. Already addressed. Second sentence, surprisingly, doesn't make sense. Based on what current processes? Absorption of what? Well, if they're talking about rocks, we have no reason to believe the laws of physics were any different at any point in earth's history than they are now. So yes we do know exactly how minerals could and couldn't be formed, and we therefore can base our techniques on modern chemical principles and have them be accurate. Absorption has nothing to do with the radiometric dating of rocks. If they're talking about C14 dating, I've already addressed the original ratio question below point one (they're quite repetitive, this person). If they're talking about the rate of absorption of carbon in prehistoric organisms, well that's moot on so many levels. It doesn't matter how fast a certain organism incorporated carbon from atmospheric CO2 into its body because a) C14 dating uses ratios and not quantities and b) there's nothing that would make atmospheric levels of C14 change fast enough to make a difference. If they're inferring that there was some mysterious mechanism that made prehistoric creatures' bodies incorporate C14 in a different ratio than what was in the atmosphere at the time...well that's pretty far-fetched. Most chemical reactions, including biological ones, aren't at all influenced by the presence of radioactive isotopes. Laws of physics, people!

That the decay rate is constant. Many things are known to affect decay rates. This is a false assumption.

Um no. A small number of things are known to affect the decay rates of certain isotopes. As a result, we don't use those isotopes for radiometric dating.

That no contamination has occurred. This is a false assumption.

Actually, when there is no evidence of contamination, it is a reasonable assumption to make. And yes, scientists check for signs that their specimen might be contaminated by another before chopping it up and throwing it in the mass spectrometer. This person seems to think geologists are all trained monkeys or something.

That no daughter (stable) element was originally in the fossil. This is a false assumption.

Pretty sure radiometric dating isn't used on fossils themselves. So let's assume we're talking about rocks, here. In some cases one can assume that there was no daughter element in the mineral being analysed because it's impossible for said daughter element to form the bonds necessary for it to be in that mineral. However, isochron dating doesn't assume there were no daughter atoms in the rock in the first place.

That the decay rate was determined accurately. Decay rates are constantly being modified and criticized. This is a false assumption.

Again, no. I can find nothing about decay rates not being well-established constants, but will keep looking.

That the only loss of the isotope is due to the decay process. This is a false assumption.

Again, this is not assumed. In minerals where it's a possibility, it is accounted for, and corrected using known values from samples that were dated by other methods.

[Bloo]

Facetious answers of facetiousness!

1. How do you make a woman from a man's rib?

YOU don't- God does, duh. And He has a lot more special powers than you. He can make anything out of anything.

2. How do you explain fossils that have been dated to millions of years old if the earth is only 6,000 years old? How do you explain societies with written records that have existed longer than that?

God is tricking the wicked-hearted. If they don't believe Him and still believe in the ebil SCIENCE then obviously they need to go to hell, stat.

3. If god made everything perfect, why do creatures ever become extinct?

God got tired of them.

4. Why do we have organs like the tailbone, appendix, tonsils, wisdom teeth, etc. if we don't need them, and in fact, they can hurt us?

Suffering is an important part of existence as a part of God's plan, since we need to suffer to make up for the fact that God didn't make us as good as He is.

5. If we all evolved from the same 2 people, why do we not show obvious effects of inbreeding? Why did we not die out as a species thousands of years ago when there was obviously not enough genetic material to sustain us?

DNA are God's Tinker Toys.

6. If everything requires a creator, who or what created god?

God.

[Esteleth]

Yeah, this list is pretty ridiculous.

For what it is worth, there is a decent theory (with lots of evidence) as to the appendix's function - i.e. it is not vestigial and useless.

It goes back to our symbiots. There are bacteria living in our gut (most people know this on some level or another). These bacteria help us digest food. One of the reasons why you have trouble with your digestion after being put on broad-spectrum antibiotics is because these bacteria are dying. The appendix, it seems, maintains a "library" (for lack of a better term) of the bacteria in your gut. These library-bugs are dormant, but alive, and can "reboot" your gut if you experience a die-off of your symbiots.

How cool is that?!

By the way: my favorite evidence of evolution is the mitochondria. Because seriously. If god did that, then god is an ignorant moron. Also, the mitochondria is awesome!

[bananacat]

The size of female breasts. There's no functional reason for them to be so large. One theory is that they replaced enlarged buttocks/genitals as a signal of reproductive status.

Women have breasts because infants have flatter faces than other primate babies. There are a few oddballs who have freakishly large breasts (like me), but most women have average-sized breasts that are just enough to allow babies to breastfeed. There may very well be secondary and tertiary reasons for the size and shape of breasts, but primarily they exist because of the shape of babies' faces.

Now, this raises the question of why babies have such flat faces with protruding noses. The best theory is that it's just a way to fit more brain into the skull while still allowing it to fit through the pelvis.

[twin2]

More questions for the creationism test

1. According to the Bible god created everything in 6 days and on the seventh day he rested. Then he appeared to go back and re-make everything again. Why. Did he sleep on it on his day off and realized he fucked up.

2. Diagram Noah's ark showing how he got 7 of each clean animal and two of each unclean animal on board. Don't forget to show where he stored all the food.

3. Did koala bears and kangaroos hitch a ride together on the same log to get from Mt Ararat to Australia, or did they take separate logs. If they took separate logs, how many years in between their journeys.

4. Look me in the eye and say with a straight face 'Yes I truly believe that humans co-existed with very large carnivorous reptiles.'

5. My DNA is about 98 percent similar to that of a chimp. Why, is god lazy.

6. Why did god make the dodo go away, he was so cute.

7. Explain how exactly how Adam and Eve got grandchildren.

8. What did god make first, Saturn or Jupiter.

9. If god gave man dominion over animals, why does my cat rule the roost.

10. Oh yeah, and if everything must have a creator, who created god.

[doggie]

For what it is worth, there is a decent theory (with lots of evidence) as to the appendix's function - i.e. it is not vestigial and useless.

It goes back to our symbiots. There are bacteria living in our gut (most people know this on some level or another). These bacteria help us digest food. One of the reasons why you have trouble with your digestion after being put on broad-spectrum antibiotics is because these bacteria are dying. The appendix, it seems, maintains a "library" (for lack of a better term) of the bacteria in your gut. These library-bugs are dormant, but alive, and can "reboot" your gut if you experience a die-off of your symbiots.

well if that's the case mine is running dos because I have struggled to get my bacteria back working after it pretty much died. 20 years later it still is a struggle

[Conuly]

Women have breasts because infants have flatter faces than other primate babies. There are a few oddballs who have freakishly large breasts (like me), but most women have average-sized breasts that are just enough to allow babies to breastfeed. There may very well be secondary and tertiary reasons for the size and shape of breasts, but primarily they exist because of the shape of babies' faces.

Of course, they don't have to be big ALL the time. Big and in the way and achey once a month....

Clearly, the correct answer to Why Do Women Have Breasts is "Because God hates women and wants us to suffer and never, ever, ever go jogging."

[Glass Cowcatcher]

This has been on FSTDT for a while, in fact I think it's about their second highest rated entry.

ETA: [link=http://www.fstdt.com/Top100.aspx]sixth one down.[/link]

[Minerva]

I'm home from my protest and ready to answer more stupid questions.

4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?

:doh: Ok, first off, I can't even discern the point of this question. Why on earth would evolution predict the reappearance of a species? Secondly, all but the most recent species have not left us any DNA so how would we know we were dealing with the same species? Now to answer the actual question, most of what guides evolution is chance. Similar environmental constraints are known to have brought about similar features in groups of organisms that do not share a common ancestor with this feature, but because the mechanism that brings out new features to be tried against the environment (genetic mutations, that is) is so random, the chances of something evolving twice are ridiculously tiny. Imagine you dropped two sheets out of planes. They can have been dropped in exactly the same conditions, but the chances of them landing crumpled exactly the same way are basically non-existent. That is how unlikely a species re-evolving is.

5. Which came first:

...the eye,

...the eyelid,

...the eyebrow,

...the eye sockets,

...the eye muscles,

...the eye lashes,

...the tear ducts,

...the brain's interpretation of light?

Well, cross eyelid, eyebrow, eye sockets, eye muscles, eye lashes and tear ducts off the list right away. That leaves you with the eye and the brain's interpretation of light. Now if you define "eye" to mean any photosensitive structures, it came first because single-celled organisms (which are, of course, brainless) had those. I'm pretty sure the scientific definition of an eye begins with photosensitive structures that are concave. The earliest known creature to have those were snails, and as far as we know prehistoric snails had brains as modern ones do. This would indicate that the brain's interpretation of light came before the eye since the brain would have been interpreting light from the photosensitive flat structures. Of course we don't know that the snail was the first creature with eyes, only that it's the earliest one we've found. We also can't infer much about what primitive snails' nervous systems looked like since they don't exactly leave amazing fossils. This is not evidence against evolutionary theory. Again, it would be fishy if did claim to know everything and with absolute certainty.

6. How many millions of years between each in question 5?

Ugh, this is a job for the google. With this as well, you won't get exact answers for all of them because, again, we can know what the earliest species we've found with each structure is, but we can't know for sure it was the earliest. There is an uncertainty of at least 100 years (depending on the period) on C14 dating. Again, this is the mark of a theory based on observable fact.

7. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can't all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?

The simple answer is this: because we're different species, duh! A species is defined as a group of organisms that can interbreed and have fertile offspring. This is the criteria that was chosen to separate species, of course it's going to be impossible! The long answer is: because we're too genetically different. I mean we usually don't even have the same number of chromosomes after all this evolution, let alone chromosomes that will fit together, let alone chromosomes with DNA similar enough to create something functional. If anyone's interested, there's a whole list of possible mechanisms through which two groups within a same species would have been made to stop breeding with each other until they were independently evolved enough to be unable to produce viable offspring should they try to interbreed again. Those mechanisms are ultimately why you can't just have a kid with your dog. Oh, and there's the fact that most species don't even share compatible reproductive tracts. If someone wants to explain to me how I'm supposed to mate with a flower, I'd be eternally grateful.

8. List any of the millions of creatures in just five stages of its evolution showing the progression of a new organ of any kind. When you have done this, you can collect the millions of dollars in rewards offered for proof of evolution!

First off, what the hell is a stage of evolution? That's not even a thing. Is it a generation? Because even taking punctuated equilibrium into account, there's no way a new organ is going to show up in just 5 generations. I'll add here that I find it telling that the author specifically asked for an example of an organ evolving. Because evolution, both macro and micro has been observed many times in the laboratory and the wild. Just not the appearance of an organ.

9. Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?

They're not. We have plenty of them. Again, how lazy do you have to be to not google this shit before writing about it?

Edited for clarity.

[Minerva]

10. Explain why something as complex as human life could happen by chance, but something as simple as a coin must have a creator. (Show your math solution.)

This doesn't even remotely concern math. A coin could happen by chance if it were separated from a vein of decently pure metal by an earthquake, exposed to the elements in exactly the right way then flattened by a falling rock harder than itself. If you found an uninscribed coin on the ground, there is a teeny tiny chance it was made that way, but because we know that humans make coins like this and have been doing so for millenia, the smart assumption to make is that it is human-made. If we visited a planet with no evidence of life whatsoever and found a coin, it would be smartest to assume that it was formed by the above unlikely geological process. Because we don't have physical evidence of a divine hand making people (and I believe this is separate from the question of whether a divine being exists at all), it is smartest for us to assume we occurred by chance through a plausible natural process. I also find the anthropocentrism of this question funny. We're by far not the most physically complex creature out there.

11. Why aren't any fossils or coal or oil being formed today?

*sigh* They are. I'm curious where the author got the idea that they aren't.

12. List 50 vestigial or useless organs or appendages in the human body.

Why fifty? Several have already been named in this thread, I'll add all the muscles we no longer use (which I don't feel like naming) and supernumerary nipples. I'll also add that male nipples aren't vestigial in the evolutionary sense.

13. Why hasn't anyone collected the millions of dollars in rewards for proof of evolution?

Because they're offered by creationists who have their heads far enough up their asses to think all the proof we have to date are hoaxes. These millions of dollars are being offered by people who don't know the first thing about science, so the fact that they haven't been released is far from objective proof of anything. That's like saying you don't believe in heliocentrism because a group of hair dressers have refused to accept any evidence of it. (No offense to hair dressers, I was just using a job very unlike that of an astrophysicist for my analogy.)

14. If life began hundreds of millions of years ago, why is the earth still under populated?

It isn't. Some species are way below the numbers they could have given their habitat, and others have way too many individuals. Overall, however, the earth is sustaining as many organisms as it can given finite space and resources.

15. Why hasn't evolution duplicated all species on all continents

See my answer to question four. Take the unlikelihood of any species being duplicated, multiply it by the average number of species on a continent, and you get something even less likely! On top of that, the continents all have quite different climates, which makes it even less likely. What about the fact that some creatures exist on more than one continent? Pangea. That is all.

I will now continue laughing at the fact that someone who knows so little about evolutionary theory has spent so much time challenging it. Also, their writing is terrible. If you showed that to a school teacher they would probably cry.

[debrand]

Thanks Minerva and anyone else who answered the questions.

[FlorenceHamilton]

Brava. I completely enjoyed this thread.

[pomology]

3. If god made everything perfect, why do creatures ever become extinct?

God got tired of them.

Yep, according to Stephen Colbert endangered species are unloved by God.