Evo survey

[Inferno]

G'Day

Two events happened today that prompted me to create this thread. I'll quickly explain the events and then go on to describe my idea. I'm also hoping on more than the usual amount of input from everybody.

Number one: I was teaching a 9th grade (15 year olds) English course today where we talked about animal testing. I'm only a student, so I had my supervising teacher in the room with me. One of the pre-reading tasks was to define a few words, among them "animal". I was shell-shocked when my supervising teacher proposed that "humans are not animals" because "we have evolved".
I'll leave you to think of the rebuttals.

Number two: I'm currently inscribed at Coursera (Free courses from Universities on the Internet, link in the Warriors against Ignorance thread) in the "Introduction to Evolution and Genetics" course with Prof. Noor (Jerry Coyne's former student) as lecturer. I chose this course because I'm interested not only in the subject but I also wanted to take something easy as a first class, just to check out the format.
Inscribed are more than 17,000 students (I think it's nearly 20,000), most of them probably lay(wo)men, but at least they're interested.

In the first lecture, there was one question, shown below. The "holes" in this question clearly means "is evolution false or faulty" and not "are there still things to be discovered". The results are below.

The result is no different from the one we would expect from the general public.
Now I expect Prof. Noor will use this survey (and another one I suspect he will create later on in the semester, near the end) to see how acceptance of evolution has changed because of the course.
There's one problem with this: A lot of people will drop out and without proper tracking of who answered what, the results will be tainted.

Now because of event #1, where someone who accepts evolution got it so horrendously wrong, I want to propose a different approach. I've looked around a bit and it looks like it's fairly easy to make an internet survey. I therefore suggest a first survey intended to see if people understand evolution.

For example, a question could look like this:
Biological evolution is change over time in a(n)
a) individual
b) population
c) animal

I'd like to have about 20-25 questions and then ask both proponents of evolution (for example people on the richarddawkins forum or on rationalskepticssociety, etc.) and opponents to evolution (christianforums, EFT forum, etc.) and then compare the two.
The questions would have to be fairly simple but also strike at the core of evolutionary theory.

Questions like "what is the relationship between orchids and certain birds" are too complex/specified, questions like "what is the difference between micro- and macro-evolution" are too ambiguous/not answerable and questions like "what are genes" are, while related to evolution and important when it comes to understanding it, not "core questions".

I'll be posting a few questions (without answers!) as soon as I get home from Sweden (this Sunday), but if someone wants to help already...

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Am I invited? I probably know as much about evolutionary theory as you know about music. Probably less. But I appreciate the effort you put into most of your posts and I'd like to give back. By... uhh... answering questions as a layman. Yes!

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

You should expand your survey questions beyond evolution/biology questions. You should include some questions about deep time/geology. It appears, to me at least, that most creationists are confused on this basic difference and lump most of geology (and astronomy) under the heading evolutionism . As I am typing this, I am not sure how one could create a question so the answer given can shine light on the confusion that must be going on in most (if not all) creationists' minds.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Also, don't be shocked if you propose hypothetical questions and the folks at EvolutionFairytale refuse to answer them because they're so ridiculous. Oh, wait...

 

[Inferno]

You should expand your survey questions beyond evolution/biology questions. You should include some questions about deep time/geology. It appears, to me at least, that most creationists are confused on this basic difference and lump most of geology (and astronomy) under the heading evolutionism . As I am typing this, I am not sure how one could create a question so the answer given can shine light on the confusion that must be going on in most (if not all) creationists' minds.

I would think that could be done in a second survey, no? In a first instance, I'm only interested in biological evolution, though I agree it would be interesting to do a follow-up like you propose.

CJ, I'd obviously appreciate you taking part. But first, questions are needed.

 

[Isotelus]

How about a question concerning the definition of a transitional species, and how it does not imply direct ancestry?
It is far too common a mistake that creationists believe scientists claim fossils like Tiktaalik or Archaeopteryx are the direct ancestors of modern day taxa. I have come across this problem countless times; it always leads to a great deal of unnessecary confusion, and all because they have an incorrect understanding of what 'transitional' really entails.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Are there holes in the evidence for Gravity?
Yes!

Does a poll have any bearing on the truth value of a scientific theory?
No!

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Interesting idea, Inferno.

Before I suggest the basis for some questions, just a quick comment regarding your sample question:

Biological evolution is change over time in a(n)
a) individual
b) population
c) animal

I think it would be better to leave out option c), as this is a unnecessary addition/complication if you want the questions to be "basic".

As to possible questions...

What is a fossil?

What are fossils made from? (Part A) [Might have to be careful with this one - see the second question after the next.]
a) hard body parts
b) soft body parts

What are fossils made from? (Part B)
a) bone
b) minerals

What is coal made from?
a) fossilized fauna
b) fossilized flora

What is oil made from?
a) fossilized dinosaurs
b) fossilized diatoms

Do fossils contain carbon?

What is a transitional fossil?
a) a fossil made of two halves of two different creatures
b) a fossil which has features of both a earlier and a later creature [...or some other suitable wording]

Are birds dinosaurs?

Are reptiles dinosaurs?

A question regarding the "geological column" could be useful - is it "real" or "a concept" - though it might be confusing or cause a debate without further questions to clarify it.

The above point suggests an approach:

Start off with a general question and then follow-up with more specific ones - like the ones about fossils.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

One question I think would be worth asking is:

The theory of evolution deals with _____.

A. Universal common descent.
B. the geologic column.
C. Life coming from nonlife.

 

[Isotelus]

The theory of evolution deals with _____.

A. Universal common descent.
B. the geologic column.
C. Life coming from nonlife.

I like this one. Good idea.

What are fossils made from? (Part A) [Might have to be careful with this one - see the second question after the next.]
a) hard body parts
b) soft body parts

What are fossils made from? (Part B)
a) bone
b) minerals

What is oil made from?
a) fossilized dinosaurs
b) fossilized diatoms

Do fossils contain carbon?

What is a transitional fossil?
a) a fossil made of two halves of two different creatures
b) a fossil which has features of both a earlier and a later creature [...or some other suitable wording]

Definitely have to be careful with these in particular. The answers for both part A and B are all correct. Soft body part fossilization (i.e., Konservat Lagerstatten) is rare, but it certainly happens, as it did in the Burgess shale. As for part B, bone tissue is already mineralized and not necessarily altered during fossilization processes.

I would just use algae for the third one. I imagine the average person wouldn't know what diatoms are.

For the fourth one, I wouldn't use it at all, as it is too broad a question that requires more than a simple yes or no answer. If you're talking about just plain ol' carbon, then the answer is yes, in the case of fossils that have undergone carbonization (a film of carbon remains and preserves the form of the organism - it occurs frequently with plants and graptolites). If you meant C14, the answer is also yes, possibly, but it results from contamination from an outside source.

For the last one, maybe add c) A fossil which has features of both its ancestral and derived (descendant) taxonomic groups. B is incorrect as it is, so adding another answer with similar wording but another meaning might make people think a bit more.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

What are fossils made from? (Part A) [Might have to be careful with this one - see the second question after the next.]
a) hard body parts
b) soft body parts

What are fossils made from? (Part B)
a) bone
b) minerals

What is oil made from?
a) fossilized dinosaurs
b) fossilized diatoms

Do fossils contain carbon?

What is a transitional fossil?
a) a fossil made of two halves of two different creatures
b) a fossil which has features of both a earlier and a later creature [...or some other suitable wording]

Definitely have to be careful with these in particular. The answers for both part A and B are all correct. Soft body part fossilization (i.e., Konservat Lagerstatten) is rare, but it certainly happens, as it did in the Burgess shale. As for part B, bone tissue is already mineralized and not necessarily altered during fossilization processes.

Which is one of the reasons why I suggested a general question with further ones to highlight specifics - including exceptions. But I take your point.

I would just use algae for the third one. I imagine the average person wouldn't know what diatoms are.

An opportunity to learn. And I dare say that the same number of people would get the wrong answer regardless, so why not use diatoms as against algae as the answer!?

For the fourth one, I wouldn't use it at all, as it is too broad a question that requires more than a simple yes or no answer. If you're talking about just plain ol' carbon, then the answer is yes, in the case of fossils that have undergone carbonization (a film of carbon remains and preserves the form of the organism - it occurs frequently with plants and graptolites). If you meant C14, the answer is also yes, possibly, but it results from contamination from an outside source.

As in the earlier case, the general question could be followed by more specific ones to highlight exceptions, etc.

For the last one, maybe add c) A fossil which has features of both its ancestral and derived (descendant) taxonomic groups. B is incorrect as it is, so adding another answer with similar wording but another meaning might make people think a bit more.

Or simply use it instead of my b) answer.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Isotelus]

Which is one of the reasons why I suggested a general question with further ones to highlight specifics - including exceptions. But I take your point.

A good suggestion of course, but is that approach concise enough to cover the breadth of evolutionary theory in only 20-25 questions? My other concern would be that if people don't understand basic evolutionary theory, any specifics (like Inferno's example of orchids and certain birds) will fall on deaf ears.

I also forgot to ask before: you intended these questions for a follow-up survey on geology, rather than the one Inferno wants to do presently, correct? That being said, the question on transitional fossils would work fine, given its connection to evolution.

An opportunity to learn. And I dare say that the same number of people would get the wrong answer regardless, so why not use diatoms as against algae as the answer!?

A "leading a horse to water but you can't make him drink" joke comes to mind here . We can't presume people will take that opportunity and apply the information in a correct manner in the future. We'll need to see what Inferno thinks, because both the answers and the question itself might simply be too specific for his purposes.

Or simply use it instead of my b) answer.

In terms of basic questions, I think what Inferno meant has more to do with the subject and content of the question itself, not how many answers should be provided. I don't see how adding a third or even fourth answer makes a basic question about a definition any less simple.
There's also the potential problem with bias. I once took a "quiz" on dinosaurs from a creationist site just for fun, and for all of the questions the answer I would want to pick simply wasn't there, so I quit a quarter of the way through. Including all potential misconceptions as answers could perhaps prevent that in some small way.

 

[mumblingmickey]

I was shell-shocked when my supervising teacher proposed that "humans are not animals" because "we have evolved".
I'll leave you to think of the rebuttals.

Okay well heres the problem... with this situation I seriously just would not be able to hold my tongue...

the phrase

"you're f*&king sh*ttin me yeah, what happened did you get a lobotomy for Christmas?"

comes to mind immediately...

You're braver than I.... If I were you I'd now be unemployed!

I don't think ignorance or idiocy should ever be excused....even for the generally stupid.... Even less so for someone who's job it is to impart their knowledge to students.

On the voting thing... well lets put it this way... I'd be in the agreeing evolution has holes in it.... if it had none then the entire study of biology would stop... because clearly we'd have now reached the absolute ceiling on knowledge that can be gathered. Moreover a percentage of what we believe to have efficacy and base inference on is bound to be wrong... just wrong... from bad testing, inaccurate data, old data never confirmed... all sorts of stuff.

But I agree its a stupid bloody question since the actual answer logically can only be yes all theory has holes. Including the ones that demonstrate that all theory has holes.

That doesn't make it any less of perfectly acceptable theory with which we can develop drugs, genetic therepy, genomics...all sorts of exciting engineering, commercial and scientific discoveries and advents.

Theres no fear in this from my perspective... because with science you have an Iron clad golden ticket of efficacy.... in that it demonstrates itself in the real world by producing new inventions and technology. Regardless of any sillyness creationists or other lunatics point to they can never get over the fact that every theory has holes, and still demonstrate themselves in the real world.

 

[Inferno]

I had time to complete a first draft of the survey. The only problem: I'm limited to ten questions and the picture question also only works with an upgraded version. I may buy a 1-month subscription, if nobody else has any better ideas.
Please take a look and tell me if I should change something.

Draft

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I had time to complete a first draft of the survey. The only problem: I'm limited to ten questions and the picture question also only works with an upgraded version. I may buy a 1-month subscription, if nobody else has any better ideas.
Please take a look and tell me if I should change something.

Draft

Your 8th question, at least to me, appears to have three correct answers. It reads, “Biological evolution is change over time in a(n)…” I believe that population, group, and genome can all be correct for this question. Is this what you were going for?