Evidence for Evolution- Refuting Arguments Quiz

Quiz Answer Key and Fun Facts

1. From "Creation Tips" (http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/evoluwrong.html):
"The theory of evolution teaches that simple life-forms evolved into more complex life-forms, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. There is no natural law known that could allow this to happen. The best that evolutionists can come up with to try to explain how this might have happened is to propose that it happened by mutations and natural selection. But mutations overwhelmingly destroy genetic information and produce creatures more handicapped than the parents...And natural selection simply weeds out unfit creatures." What is the biggest problem with these statements?

Answer: The explanation of mutation and natural selection is wrong

Mutations are usually neutral or beneficial in some circumstances (see Q. 9 for further discussion.)
Natural selection does not just "weed out unfit creatures." It's rather the opposite- those creatures most superbly adapted to their environment thrive and produce more offspring, and thus contribute more genes to the population.

2. From "Creation Tips" (http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/pests.html)
"Some plant and animal pests, and some bacteria, survive chemicals and antibiotics that are used to kill them. Isn't this evolution on a tiny time-scale? No, because the only pests that survive are the ones that are already resistant to the chemicals. They don't evolve resistance, because they already have it. They then breed offspring with the same genetic resistance until the only ones living are those that have resistance." What is the biggest problem with this statement?

Answer: What is explained *is* evolution

We are all a collection of genes. Genes are the instructions for making our bodies grow and work. Evolution acts upon genes. Evolution can be viewed as change in genetic frequency over time. If the genome of the insects changes over time, so that the genes for pesticide resistance become more common, evolution *has* occurred. This is natural selection in action.

3. From "Creation Tips":(http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/panda.html) "The raccoon-like red panda... has razor-sharp claws and a vicious bite that it rarely attacks with; and it has supposedly evolved a small "sixth finger" or "pseudo-thumb" on its front paws from the wristbone. But the panda's thumb is not evidence for evolution. It gives absolutely no evidence that pandas have evolved from non-pandas... And although some pandas will eat meat, they prefer bamboo, fruit and plants. Yet we find there is no evidence their ancestors were anything but vegetarian pandas. In fact, zoologists still can't agree after more than a century on what pandas could have evolved from." What is the biggest problem with this statement?

Answer: All of these

In reality, the red panda is a beautiful example of evolution.

The panda started out as a carnivore, and all of its features are evolved from the available carnivore body plan. Its claws are sharp and partially retractable, like those of many other arboreal carnivores, so that it can climb well. Its teeth are those of a carnivore, but its molars have become more flattened and its incisors longer, to adapt it to its primarily vegetarian diet. One would think that if the panda were "created" a vegetarian, it would have teeth like a squirrel or other arboreal plant-eater, not teeth that are quite obviously those of a carnivore!

In reality, we know quite a bit about the evolution of pandas. The first proto-panda, Ailuaractos lufengensis, appeared about 8 million years ago. It had teeth that were very similar to today's arctoids (bears and raccoons,) and was about the size of a fox. Its descendant, Ailuropoda microta, found about 3 million years ago, had teeth that were intermediate between today's arctoids and the modern panda. About 1 million years ago, several species of animals similar to today's pandas appeared.

4. From "Creation Tips" (http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/birds.html): "For a flying bird to have evolved from a non-flying reptile, as the evolution theory proposes, almost every structure in the non-flying animal would need to change. There is no living or fossil evidence for this, and much against it." What is the biggest problem with this statement?

Answer: We actually have quite a bit of fossil evidence on how birds evolved from reptiles

Today's birds still show sign of their reptilian ancestry. Feathers, for example, are just modified scales- both are composed of keratin, and many birds today have scaly feet. Some birds, like penguins, even show intergradations between scales and feathers- the very edge of a penguin's wing is scaly, and between the scales and feathers are zones of featherlike scales- or scale-like feathers!
The early theropod dinosaurs were the most likely ancestors of birds. They had feet like a bird's, with three toes in back and one behind, ran on their hind legs, and had hollow bones.
Later theropod dinosaurs like Oviraptor and Deinonychus, evolved breastbones similar to those in modern birds.
Archaeopteryx was the first fossil recognized as a bird. While it had feathers, it also had teeth and scales.
This was followed by even more fossils with predominantly more birdlike characteristics and fewer reptilian ones.

5. From "Creation Tips" (http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/CrabMystery.html): "One of the most intriguing facts about crustaceans, as far as creation scientists are concerned...is that evolutionists have no idea how crustaceans could have evolved." Is it true that evolutionists have no idea how crustaceans could have evolved?

Answer: No

Crustaceans are arthropods, the most successful phylum of animals on the planet, that also includes everything from spiders to insects to pillbugs.
Arthropods are presumed to have the annelid worms (like earthworms) as their ancestors. Annelid worms, like insects, are segmented, and some marine annelid worms have leglike structures on their segments.
The first arthropods were worm-shaped, but had better developed legs than the annelids. Later arthropods added a harder exoskeleton. The arthropod ancestors diversified into many forms, including the crustaceans, which remained primarily aquatic.
Many scientists today are researching crustacean and other arthropod DNA to determine the relationships in this huge group of animals.

6. From "Scientific Evidence for Creation" (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm): "We charge any school textbook with fraud and gross misrepresentation...If they fail to mention the fact that the extinct Hyracotherium (Eohippus) was almost identical in body design, feet, toes and size, to the modern living Hyrax, except for the skull and tail." What is the biggest problem with this statement?

Answer: The skull is by far the most important part to look at when determining if animals are related.

The claim that Hyracotherium=hyrax is rampant in creationist literature. It's also wrong.
When scientists try to determine how animals are related, the skull is absolutely the most important evidence that they examine. The most important part of the skull is the teeth. Teeth tell us many things about an animal- what it ate, for example. Animals that are closely related will have the same "tooth formula"- number of teeth in each side of the jaw, upper and lower, listed in order of incisors, canines, molars and premolars.
The tooth formula for Hyracotherium is:
3 . 1 . 4 . 3
3 . 1 . 4 . 3
The tooth formula for a hyrax is:
1 . 0 . 4 . 3
2 . 0 . 4 . 3

Not similar at all. Without similarity in the teeth, it is certain that Hyracotherium is not a hyrax.

7. From the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-342.htm): "Only 13 days after the act of terrorism on NewYork, Public Broadcasting Stations delivered a different, but another event of grave importance that was witnessed by millions of Americans-a seven-part, eight hour special entitled "Evolution." PBS...televised one of the boldest assaults yet upon both our public schools with the millions of innocent school children and the foundational worldview on which our nation was built. These two "assaults" have similar histories and goals. The public was unaware of the deliberate preparation that was schemed over the past few years leading up to these events. And while the public now understands from President Bush that, "We're at War" with militant Islamics around the world, they don't have a clue that America is being attacked from within through its public schools by a militant religious movement of philosophical naturalists (i.e., atheists) under the guise of secular Darwinism. Both desire to alter the life and thinking of our nation." What is a crucial problem with these statements?

Answer: All of these

Frankly, a statement like this shouldn't need to be refuted. Comparing scientists who research evolution to deadly terrorists would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that some truly believe that scientists are agents of evil, bent on corrupting children.
The issue at hand here was the airing by PBS of the series mentioned above, "Evolution," which, not surprisingly, discussed evolution. The series was produced without the customary foundation backing that PBS programs receive, as the foundations considered it "too controversial."
Creationists began protesting the series months before it aired, and continued their attacks long after the series was over.
For some resources on the program, please see the PBS website http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

8. From the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta34.html): "Nor does it help any to attribute these changes all to the prehistoric past, the world of the fossils, because the same great "gaps" exist between basic kinds in the fossil world that exist in the modern world. There are new varieties of dogs and new varieties of cats found in the fossil world, but still nothing between a dog and a cat! The "missing links" are still missing, despite the innumerable fossils of animals and plants that have been excavated over the centuries." What is the biggest problem with these statements?

Answer: No evolutionist would expect to find a link between dogs and cats, only a common ancestor

There is no reason to expect a "missing link" between dogs and cats. Evolution is like a branching bush- remember the Tree of Life? Dogs and cats are separate branches on the carnivore bush. Instead, what we would look for is an animal ancestral to both dogs and cats. The carnivores arose from a group of mammals called the creodonts.

The creodonts split into two groups-one, the bulky, long-jawed arctoid carnivores, were the ancestors of bears, mustelids and dogs; the other group, the slim, shorter-jawed aeluroid carnivores, were the ancestors of cats, hyenas, and mongooses.

As dogs and cats diverged long ago, we do not expect to see any intermediate forms between them.

9. From "The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution" (http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution03.php): "Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by the people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature. The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure and random effects can only cause harm to this structure...Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful." What is the biggest problem with these statements?

Answer: Beneficial mutations have been observed

In reality, most mutations either do not affect the organism, for better or for worse, or confer advantages in at least some circumstances.
Beneficial mutations are rarely observed because scientists are rarely looking for them. Sensibly enough, deleterious mutations are more apt to be noted and researched. But beneficial mutations have been found and documented in organisms from protozoans to people. A few examples:
- Mutations in bacteria lead to antibiotic resistance. Although this is bad for humans, it's great for the bacteria!
- A type of bacteria possesses a mutation that allows it to "eat" molecules that make up nylon. These bacteria thrive in the waste water of nylon plants.
-Some flatworms have a mutated gene that allows them to use energy more efficiently and live much longer than flatworms without the mutation.
- In humans, tolerance to lactose (milk sugar) is actually a mutation that allows adults to drink milk- "lactose intolerance" is the natural state! Only some human populations commonly have this mutation.
- In Italy, some people possess a gene mutation that makes them immune to atherosclerosis. All people who have this gene trace their ancestry to one ancestor in the 1700s.
- Some people possess a mutant version of a gene known as CCR5. People with this mutation are much more resistant to AIDS than people with the unmutated gene.

10. From Intelligent Design(http://www.intelligentdesign.org/aboutus.html): "The flagellum is quite literally an outboard motor that some bacteria use to swim. It is a rotary device that, like a motorboat, turns a propeller to push against liquid, moving the bacterium forward in the process. It consists of a number of parts... Like a mousetrap, the flagellum is irreducibly complex. And again like the mousetrap, its evolutionary development by "numerous, successive, slight modifications" is quite difficult to envision. In fact, if one examines the scientific literature, one quickly sees that no one has ever proposed a serious, detailed model for how the flagellum might have arisen in a Darwinian manner, let alone conducted experiments to test such a model." What is the biggest problem with these statements?

Answer: Scientists do have an explanation for how the flagellum could have evolved

The bacterial flagellum is indeed a marvel of engineering, but it is not irreducibly complex.
It may have originally evolved as an organ to transport and inject toxins into cells. For example, the plague bacterium, Yersinia pestis, has no flagella but has an organ that resembles a flagellum but is instead used as a needle. This organ is composed of many, but not all, the same parts that make up a flagellum. Further evidence for the origin of the flagellum in bacterial transport systems is that it still acts to secrete proteins even as it moves the cell around.
For a couple of good articles on the evolution of flagella, see:
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/flagella.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Source: Author crisw

This quiz was reviewed by our editing team before going online.
Any errors found in FunTrivia content are routinely corrected through our feedback system.

This is the third in a series of quizzes on the scientific evidence for evolution. Here are some arguments against evolution- see if you can debunk them.

NEXT>

NEXT>

NEXT>

NEXT>

NEXT>

NEXT>

NEXT>

NEXT>

NEXT>