Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,204 Year: 5,461/9,624 Month: 486/323 Week: 126/204 Day: 0/26 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   A Test Of Science And Evolution Knowledge
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 32 of 83 (814040)
07-03-2017 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
07-02-2017 2:02 PM

The first quiz/test is population genetics. A difficult test Goku provided (a member from EFF with good education of evolution), I only got 65% on this test and that is probably the best low score I have ever got because my knowledge of this minutia level of science isn't the best;
HTTP Status 404 — Not Found
Out of 43 questions, you answered 31 correctly, for a final grade of 72%
Quite a tricky technical one that one.
This is just a test on evolution I googled;
Evolution T/F Quiz
I got 88% on that one.
Don't like this one, some questions that are not really answerable:
3. Evolution is a process which involved the origin of life.
I mean, the origin of life seems to have utilised evolutionary processes so it could be considered true. The Theory Of Evolution as it stands today, doesn't include the origin of life, but the evolution of life on earth does include the origins of life.
Evolution can be compatible with all the world's major religions.
Depends on what you consider the world's major religions really. The world's major religions could be interpreted to be compatible with evolution, but this way round is ambiguous.
Anyway: You were 92% correct.
And finally a science and technology quiz, which I got 14 out of 15;
Public’s Knowledge of Science and Technology | Pew Research Center
You answered 13 of 13 questions correctly.
Interesting to see that all of the answers but one are answered correctly by the majority of people. That one question gets 3/4 of people.
So then do creationists understand the ToE, but perhaps just don't value it like you do?
I'd say that many creationists do not understand the ToE at all, exhibiting persistent misapprehensions about one thing or another to do with the subject. Of those that have a grip on it, their religious commitment to a particular belief overrides their reasoning - and they find ways to rationalize the contradiction.
I believe there are many creationists like me, that understand your theory but simply don't accept it is true and believe on logical grounds it runs short of the mark.
I've seen your logic and find it lacking. I think you are very much trying to rationalise your scepticism.
My belief is that there is a strong connection between disinterest in a subject and ignorance of it.
Maybe so - but this doesn't explain why so many creationists who are active in the EvC debate have such persistent holes in their knowledge. They are clearly interested in the subject, right?
I believe in all honesty, if the boot was on the other foot, evolutionists would generally score low if there were tests to understand the creationist arguments from creation scientists.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that evolutionists scored better than creationists on creationist arguments. But that's a hypothesis for the testing, I suppose.
I have given an argument against evolution here which is a logically correct deductive argument in message one
So that means between the Permian and Triassic we should see the transitionals for lizards.
This is empirically false. Regardless of your logic, if it fails in facts your are going to err. There is no 'should' with fossils. There is no reason to expect such fossils. The correct reasoning is actually 'if a transitional fossil exists, it would be found here'. If no such fossils exist we won't find them. If we haven't found them, we won't see them.
You go on to talk about how this applies to other groups too. That said, I could argue evolution without the use of fossils. Fossils give us natural history, but aren't required evidence for evolution. We are just fortuitous we have some fossils, and the fossils we have are consistent with what we know about evolution from other sources. The existence of fossils made it easier to develop the theory, and gives us some additional data to work from - but evolution could be true with zero fossil. Evolution does not necessitate fossils.
Anyway, you'll find the lizard fossils in the Carboniferous, before the Permian and Triassic - see Hylonomus. It came after Westlothiana, which seems to have a mix of amphibious and reptillian/amniote features. See also: Casineria - also showing a mix of characteristics - exhibiting the characteristics of, dare I say, a 'transition' between the two groups.
These are not obscure fossils, so one wonders - how did you miss them when you wrote what you wrote? I suggest you are simply not motivated to find them as they contradict or complicate your thesis.
Another problem with this issue, is that when creationists question evolution or they say something that doesn't favour it, automatically in my experience of debate, it seems to be a tactic to say that the creationist only says those things because of a lack of understanding....Isn't that basically just an ad hominem tactic
No, it is not an attack of the person - but an attack of their knowledge. A perfectly valid tactic in a debate.
What does it really mean to say the "scientific community's assessment", Lol.
It means that the people trained in subject generally say one thing. It's like saying 'in the electrical engineer's community assessment you should ensure your domestic circuits are correctly earthed' or something. It's not a controversial subject. The experts are called experts and are given the credibility of expertise for a reason. I would trust electricians perspectives on wiring my house over the opinions of lay people who have superstitions regarding earthing circuits for traditional reasons.
Are they necessarily experts in critical thinking and logic?
Not necessarily, but generally, yes. Getting a degree or a phd requires becoming rather good at critical thinking and most subjects require logic and reasoning skills, mathematics and so on. In fact, as a general rule - one has to be among the best critical thinkers and reasoners in the world to achieve this. An expert in critical thinking, you might say. Being humans as part of a human process of educational assessment - this is not a perfect system, but it's a pretty good one.
Is the truth-veracity/value of a claim, and it's proof-status, something science deals with for historical theories which began with evolution and long ages?
In so far as science is about truth/veracity and proof statuses in general - then yes, science deals with this for 'historical theories'. But then....
That is to say, they themselves assess evolution to see if it counts as a well explained or best scientific explanation of the facts, they themselves aren't assessing it's truth-value.
This is no different than any science. 'Historical' theories are not exceptional in this regard. The Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Quantum Loop gravity - they are all attempts to build explanatory frameworks for the facts as we understand them, with a cycle of hypothesis testing which, the philosophy goes, gets us ever closer to truth but without us ever being certain if and when we get to The Truth.
They are not sitting down then saying, "yes, macro evolution truly did happen it is proven."
No scientist says this about anything, in the way you are meaning it here. They will more likely to say 'it is overwhelmingly likely...based on the evidence presently available' if they are being technical, only reverting to informal language if the forum permits it - ie., talking to a lay audience.
That isn't how a theory operates. It operates by inductive reasoning
Inductive, abductive, deductive - no type of logic is excluded from the process. Abductive is quite an important, and often overlooked, method:
Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference, or retroduction) is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation.--wiki

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 07-02-2017 2:02 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by dwise1, posted 07-04-2017 1:06 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 46 by caffeine, posted 07-04-2017 2:58 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 45 of 83 (814114)
07-04-2017 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by dwise1
07-04-2017 1:06 AM

There were only 13 questions, yet he claims "14 out of 15". That is a factual discrepancy that needs to be resolved.
I'm happy to suppose he remembered he got one wrong and misremembered the number of questions and had already closed the tab when he made the post. It doesn't seem something that needs resolving in my mind, as peculiar as it is.
Which question are you referring to? I printed out my results page as a PDF, but it did not include all the questions. I would be interested to know which question 75% of the people didn't answer correctly.
Stile is correct. It's that particular question - not added here to avoid 'spoilerism' - It's easy to see how most people went wrong there.
BTW, regarding your new avatar. At a Scottish Games here in the USA, I saw a t-shirt that read, "If this were a skirt, I'd be wearing underwear!"
Two people complemented my 'kilt' the day that day. My responses were:
1) The knickers I'm wearing suggests otherwise.
2) Kilts don't generally have underskirts {some male kilt wearers do go for a cotton slip, but not without controversy!}
I mean - you'd think the bright pink bra, visible in the picture, and C-cup breasts would have been a clue too Aye, the beard oft overpowers the boobs, laddie.
In one scene she's wearing a tartan mini-skirt. But then I notice the leather straps. She's wearing a mini-kilt! As they say, the Devil's in the details!
Of course all kilts are skirts, but not all skirts are kilts. The leather 'brings to mind a kilt', and the concept of kilt has been watered down from traditional roots I imagine. Faux kilt? Kiltish? Pseudokilt?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by dwise1, posted 07-04-2017 1:06 AM dwise1 has not replied

Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 49 of 83 (814135)
07-04-2017 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by caffeine
07-04-2017 2:58 PM

In Mike's defence, those aren't lizards.
In my defence, that which evolved into lizards is necessarily not a lizard
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by caffeine, posted 07-04-2017 2:58 PM caffeine has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024