Wednesday, July 8, 2009

The Evolution Test™

I might have made some mistakes or not completed my arguments for some questions, and might end up regretting this, but it is nearly 2 am and I am annoyed at them.

"Courtesy" of the Missing Universe Museum

EVOLUTION TEST:

1. Which evolved first, male or female?

A: Neither. Many species reproduce asexually. Some animals only have male or female members (some types of lizards), some have hermaphrodites (earthworms, snails), some can transform to the other sex when no mates are available (some types of fish). Sex in humans is determined by the Y chromosome (XY is male, XX is female), while in birds it is determined by the W chromosome (ZW is female, ZZ is male.) In reptiles such as crocodiles or turtles, the temperature of the egg determines the sex of the embryo. The way sex is determined varies with species!
2. How many millions of years elapsed between the first male and first female?

A: Zero. There was no "first male" or "first female". There were asexual beings (like bacteria), some of whom developed the ability to transfer genetic material to other individuals by the transmission of a plasmid (small piece of circular DNA). The bacteria which received this plasmid ("females", if you are bent on using this system of description) subsequently acquired the ability to transfer their own material to other individuals (thereby becoming "male")
3. List at least 9 of the false assumptions made with radioactive dating methods.

A: I feel that this question is too open-ended for there to be a correct answer.
4. Why hasn't any extinct creature re-evolved after millions of years?

A: Evolution is due to random chance. The possiblities are endless. Would you be able to reorganize a sequence of trillions of letters if it got disturbed by accident? Mathematically, the possible arrangements are greater than the number of atoms in the entire universe.
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?

A: The "brain's" interpretation of light. Plants detect light. Protists like Euglena have an "eyespot" but no brain. Planarians (flatworms) have eyespots and nerve ganglia (not big enough to be considered brains). Once the detection of light becomes a useful feature, organs to better sense light with conferred an advantage on their owner, who was lucky enough to pass on its genes to the next generation. As to the rest... Do fish have eyelashes? Do flies have eyelids?
6. How many millions of years between each in question 5?

A: The answer is inconsequential. It should rather be measured by the species which first present that trait and the species that came after it. I'll answer this question in numerical values if you can tell me exactly what interval of time elapsed between each species God created?
7. If we all evolved from a common ancestor, why can't all the different species mate with one another and produce fertile offspring?

A: The definition of a species is "
a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen". "Cousin" species can mate but produce infertile offsprings (ex. donkey and horse). Related species can mate but not produce viable offsprings. Species which are too far apart taxonomically cannot even mate.
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!

A:
1. Lancelet - no eyes
2. Planarian - eyespots
3. Fish - eyes
4. Dog - better vision, but cannot see colors
5. Humans - one of the most highly developed sense of vision in the animal kingdom.
9. Why is it that the very things that would prove Evolution (transitional forms) are still missing?

A: They aren't. Look at your little toes. Are they useful to you? Is every being on this planet going to look the same in millions of years? No. We are transitional forms.
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.)

A: A coin is made of one (or two) rather unreactive elements (in the case of pennies, copper and zinc) shaped into something. By itself, the element would just take on the shape allowed by the laws of physics--a crystalline structure between the atoms. A living being is made of hundreds of elements interacting together--carbon is very reactive, it bonds to other elements, which interact differently with other elements, which in turn interact with other elements--in essence, life is a big chemical reaction. I won't try to explain it to you, though. It tends to disprove the existence of God and/or free will.
11. Why aren't any fossils or coal or oil being formed today?

A: They would be, if we let dead matter lie without being disturbed. Humans have too great an impact on the physical Earth to let slow processes happen. The floor of the untouched rainforest, though, is slowly compacting itself into what could become fossils, coal, or oil if we let it rest long enough (and by long enough I mean millions more years). Similarly: Why aren't any diamonds or gold or opals being formed today? They are but it's too slow for us to notice.
12. List 50 vestigial or useless organs or appendages in the human body.

A: It depends what you consider vestigial organs.
-all of the bones in your tail
-pharyngeal slits in human embryos
-webbing between fingers
-the muscles used to move one's ears
-little toes
-toes in general
-toenails
-the pointed bump some people have on their ears
-wisdom teeth
-body hair
-genital hair
-clitoris (no function but sexual pleasure)
-moles (technically they are mutations, and you believe all mutations are bad, so they fit here)
-freckles
-butt cheeks
...need I go on?
13. Why hasn't anyone collected the millions of dollars in rewards for proof of evolution?

A: Why haven't you collected the trillions of dollars all of Humankind would give you in reward for proving the existence of God?
14. If life began hundreds of millions of years ago, why is the earth still under populated?

A: Things keep dying. Funny, that...
On a scientific note, populations follow a logarithmic growth pattern. I am assuming you are talking about humans here, because bacteria are all over the surface of the Earth, plants also, and ants too--but they have reached an equilibrium in their population. Humans have passed the slow stage of growth and are now in the population explosion phase. Eventually, we will reach carrying capacity.
15. Why hasn't evolution duplicated all species on all continents?

A: Actually, if you look closely at species on the Australian continent and all other continents, you'll notice that they are remarkably similar in shape and function--while being completely different (mammals in Australia tend to be marsupials, other continents have mostly eutherian mammals). The other continents haven't been separated long enough to diversify to that point.

8 comments:

joe said...

A good post. Although I take issue with your little rants against toes. In the current human foot, toes are still essential for balance, especially your big toe. They are far from perfect at what they do, however, and could do with a good deal of evolution.

Scriptor Senex said...

Agree entirely with the general tenor of your responses but is answer 8 an acceptable answer? It asks for " five stages of its evolution". Dogs are not in the progression of human evolution.
Good fun but wouldn't have liked to have tackled it in the early hours..

the Beatnik Husker said...

I love the implication that a "coin" is something that is simple. Seeing as a coin implies certain other NON-simple things... i.e. the concepts of currency, economy, and trade... not to mention metallurgy, and mining. The simple act of minting coins implies governmental administration/authority/bureaucracy... I've got to stop or I'm only going to aggravate myself.

last Hussar said...

I was going to pick up on the toes- why not appendix instead?

Oh- did you know whales have legs, buried in the blubber? How vestigial is that!

Joffan said...

Great answers...

EXCEPT I disagree strongly that a clitoris is vestigial. The idea has an unpleasantly Puritan overtone, as though pleasure is not a desirable outcome of life.

I'll disagree with the other commenters, however, and support your Q8 answer, on the reasonable assumption that "five stages of its evolution" refers to the organ, not the creature. You could though have started with the Planarian and used the pinhole-camera eye of the nautilus at (b).

Graham Edwards said...

Yes. On a point of detail I would have queried toes as well.

But, hey, I asked myself, why bother answering such fatuous questions (some, not all).

I'm afraid that my view of people who question evolution or, more accurately, who say that the world was created 6000 years ago (or whatever depending on interpretation) is to ignore them. But then I don't live in the USA with the more serious implications in the education field. I know that you may say that is defeatist but, despite, Dawkins et al the various arguments for evolution are only winable on paper. The mind of the unconvincable cannot be changed.

God cannot be proved or disproved because belief in a god is a matter of faith not reason. Evolution is a matter of reason not faith. The two are on opposite sides of the freeway travelling in opposite directions with a crash barrier separating them.

Apart from that.....wotthehellarchiewotthehell

The Archduchess said...

Oh boy! Oh boy! So many comments! This is wonderful beyond belief!

Toes: Yeah, I ought to have left those out. Except for little toes. Mine are so tiny I can't even move them and they barely reach the floor when I stand on tip-toe, so essentially they are useless. I'll take the rest of the toes for balance, though. You're right.

Q8: I think I'll agree with everyone on different points.
Joffan - I tried to show a set of creatures in a "line" on the evolutionary scale, starting with basic chordates and working the way up to humans. Dogs were a bit off to the side, I should have used some sort of small mammal instead, but my point is the same. I didn't want to use nautili (although I did think of them early on, there eyes are quite facinating) because they are invertebrates and thus not in the 'direct progression'.
Scriptor - I took the question to mean progression of a creature across time (with a bit of leeway, as there has been evolution since families branched off, but on the whole they remain fairly similar to the original organisms in which the trait was first apparent) since, essentially, we stem from the same creature. If one were to use a single creature, maybe the peppered moth could be used as an example? The visible evolution is in the color and not an actual organ, but it occurred over the course of a human lifetime, so I suppose it's proof enough.

Odds and ends:

the Beatnik Husker - I'm sure whoever wrote this test only thought of physical simplicity and not the thought process behind it (which is, as you show, quite complex.) But you have a very valid point.

Iast Hussar - The appendix commonly comes up in lists of vestigial organs, but recent research shows it's a useful "library" of gut bacteria to "reboot the system," if you will, after infections that destroy internal flora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix#Function). And for the whales--I just read about that a couple of weeks ago! That is indeed as vestigial as it gets, unless those feet have since become part of a support system for the blubber/lower abdomen in some way. I don't know much about that. But hurray for descendants of hippopotamuses!

Joffan - Yep, the clitoris does have a function (on the whole, I'm rather thankful for its existence), so it's not vestigial. However, I read the "incest theory" email right before (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/i_get_email_30.php), so I thought it would be good to remind them of body parts that ought not to be there if indeed "God did not give them power to have sex and create. Because that would be evil and bad."

GB - It's perfectly fine to ignore them, it is, unfortunately, almost impossible to convince a madman of the flaws in his belief. In fact, I don't think I have encountered opposition to evolution (or at least, opposition as vehement as it is here) outside of the US. Here, though, it's dangerous to ignore them--they can (and do) end up in charge of public education. As to religion--well, I often ponder that, and eventually confuse myself to the point that I find myself in an endless loop of thought. I'd rather ignore it.

Graham Edwards said...

Yes, Archduchesse, I can, of course, see your point. In the UK so far as I know all my friends or acquaintances accept evolution. I do have very intelligent friends (teachers!) in NZ who refute evolutionism and believe the world was created 6000 (?) years ago. No amount of discussion will move them because their belief is based on faith not reason.

I believe that the problem with The Evolution Test is that it is designed to elicit quotes and answers that can be argued against to enable the fundamentalists to keep the high ground as they see it.

As you will gather I am not new to this and it needs people with your knowledge and enthusiasm to carry it forward. I have grown tired.