Test your understanding of Evolution

[ronburgundy]

I think you should explain in the beginning that the answers should be the one that best illustrates the principles of evolution. You hinted at this in several, but not all. If you did that I think most of the criticism is corrected for. That said I'll do some nitpicking of my own. I got two wrong.


I chose

a) A shorter beak, because one generation is not long enough for adaptive variations

After reading it several times I decided that "shorter" meant no significant change in size since it remains shorter than what is required for adaptation, and one generation is clearly insufficient for evolution to take place. The beak actually getting smaller would make no sense whatsoever.

4. It’s safe to assume that it is advantageous to be able to see well during both day and night. However, humans have a difficult time seeing in the dark, even though some other animals do not. Why don’t all animals have all the traits that would be most adaptive for their survival?

I narrowed it down to two:

c) Alleles for some traits were never randomly generated within that species
d) They will eventually, there just hasn’t been enough time yet

The choice is somewhat ambiguous. With c) the necessary alleles could have been generated but not propagated sufficiently or they were otherwise suppressed. For d) it seems reasonable that given enough time and the right environment the traits would evolve randomly, at least in principle. And it seems this would include the generation of alleles.

Good point about option d with question 4. A truly infinite amount of time would technically lead to all possible alleles being generated under all situations in which adaptive one's could be selected.

As for Q 2, yeah systematically shorter beaks makes no sense without some kind of anti-adaptation mechanism or an asshole God trying to make things harder (which some people believe in). But its hard to avoid some wrong answers that are just absurd even if you just apply basic logic. You just overthought that one, which highlights a common obstacle in creating good test questions, which is trying not to have wrong answer options that smart people might read too much into. Simple memory tests that are multiple choice are much easier, but multiple choice tests that require some inferences and application of concepts are much harder to create. You need 3 wrong answers that are not correct but also at least some must seem plausible if you aren't applying accurate knowledge to them. Sometimes the structure of the question just requires one of the wrong answers being almost absurd and occasionally that can throw off a person that is over-thinking it or assumes they are being tricked. In a sample of undergrads, only about 5% picked that "shorter" wrong answer, so I'm not so worried.

This is why most teachers don't really test deeper understanding or application of knowledge, and only test for memory where all you really need to to recognize or write the words you read in your textbook to get the right answer. Using open-ended short answer questions doesn't fix that problem, it just hides it. It means that all these decisions about what is and is not a correct response are done informally in the test scorers head as they read the countless variations in the students writing.

Thanks.

 

[Malintent]

I got them all right, except for question 4... I do not understand what you are getting at there, nor do I feel the correct answer is actually meaningful (Who is "generating" the "randomness"? It sounds like operator error, lol)

I also feel like question 5 needs improvement... I only selected the correct answer based on the validity of the response, not it's relationship to anything about the question.

for example, I may ask the (impossible to answer) question, "What number am I thinking of"
And then supply the following multiple choices:

a) Green
b) Under the Bed
c) 42
d) the square root of -1

One would be able to select the correct response without knowing the answer to the question.

 

[Treedbear]

... and occasionally that can throw off a person that is over-thinking it or assumes they are being tricked. ...

Yeah, that's me for sure.

 

[Peez]

In a sample of undergrads, only about 5% picked that "shorter" wrong answer, so I'm not so worried.

One pattern that I have noticed (and seek to avoid) is that a lazy test-writer will often have the right answer longer than others. This is simply because a wrong answer does not have to be careful, but often the right answer must be worded carefully. I therefore make a conscious effort to make my answers at least approximately similar in length.

Peez

 

[untermensche]

Question #2.



We have no way to derive odds like that.

It may in fact be the case that a mutation that leads to a longer beak is more likely.

You flunk.

Evolution has no idea that longer beaks are desired. The beak length will vary based on the genetics, unless it's controlled by a simple gene (for example, eye color) the effect will appear random.

Evolution has no effect on the reproductive process. Rather, the short-beaked birds have a harder time finding food and thus are less likely to reproduce in the first place.

You flunk.

You say the chances are equal.

There is no way to determine the chances for genetic mutation that will change beak size.

It may turn out that genetic change that increases beak size is more likely.

To blindly say the chances for an increase in size are as likely as the chances for a decrease in size is nonsense.

 

[ronburgundy]

... and occasionally that can throw off a person that is over-thinking it or assumes they are being tricked. ...

Yeah, that's me for sure.

I was the same kind of test taker. I fought with my teachers all the time about why my answers were correct. I usually won, and once got a paid research position out of it

Now that I've spend some time constructing and revising other people's tests, I realize that when you have to go that far to make the answer correct, it's not the intended answer but just a flaw which are hard to completely avoid.

 

[ronburgundy]

You flunk.

Evolution has no idea that longer beaks are desired. The beak length will vary based on the genetics, unless it's controlled by a simple gene (for example, eye color) the effect will appear random.

Evolution has no effect on the reproductive process. Rather, the short-beaked birds have a harder time finding food and thus are less likely to reproduce in the first place.

You flunk.

You say the chances are equal.

There is no way to determine the chances for genetic mutation that will change beak size.


It may turn out that genetic change that increases beak size is more likely.

But if you do not have any evidence either way, then the chances are in fact equal, given the current state of knowledge. Outside of the multi-generational selection pressures that are not in play in a single generation difference, the possible factors that might constrain the beaks to be longer are no greater than those that might constrain them to be shorter.
Thus, they cancel out and are equal odds.
That is the nature of "chances". They are different depending on whether it is before or after specific relevant knowledge is known.

The bottom line is that with the given information, equal odds is the best prediction and the most consistent with an understanding of evolution.

BTW, let's stop with the personal attacks and condescension. I know Loren started it with his "you Flunk" comment, but there is nothing in this thread people should be getting emotional or personal about.

 

[ronburgundy]

In a sample of undergrads, only about 5% picked that "shorter" wrong answer, so I'm not so worried.

One pattern that I have noticed (and seek to avoid) is that a lazy test-writer will often have the right answer longer than others. This is simply because a wrong answer does not have to be careful, but often the right answer must be worded carefully. I therefore make a conscious effort to make my answers at least approximately similar in length.

Peez

Very valid point, though you're using a different meaning of "shorter" wrong answer than I meant. I meant the wrong answer that literally said "shorter beaks", which the wording of that answer wasn't actually shorter than the right answer. I did actually make an effort to ensure the the right answer wasn't the longest. I think only in question 4 is the right answer a different length than the others, and its actually shorter, which wasn't on purpose but could actually throw off people that don't know the right answer and are just guessing using the strategy you mentioned.

 

[fast]

I missed 2 questions. I missed question #4 and question #6. That I'm admitting this is embarrassing--just so ya know.

 

[untermensche]

You flunk.

You say the chances are equal.

There is no way to determine the chances for genetic mutation that will change beak size.


It may turn out that genetic change that increases beak size is more likely.

But if you do not have any evidence either way, then the chances are in fact equal, given the current state of knowledge. Outside of the multi-generational selection pressures that are not in play in a single generation difference, the possible factors that might constrain the beaks to be longer are no greater than those that might constrain them to be shorter.
Thus, they cancel out and are equal odds.
That is the nature of "chances". They are different depending on whether it is before or after specific relevant knowledge is known.

The bottom line is that with the given information, equal odds is the best prediction and the most consistent with an understanding of evolution.

BTW, let's stop with the personal attacks and condescension. I know Loren started it with his "you Flunk" comment, but there is nothing in this thread people should be getting emotional or personal about.

Wrong.

That is not how it works.

The odds either way cannot be determined.

That is not equivalent to saying the odds are equal.

Not close.

In terms of evolution, a certain species of bird may develop a long beak because something in their genome makes it more likely, while another species might develop claws and a sharp cutting beak because their genome makes that more likely.

Once you have complete organisms you are not dealing with blank slates where change of any kind in any direction is equally likely.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I got them all correct. I'm a GED graduate, but I have studied evolution on my own over the course of several years. On a 1-10 scale of 1 being clueless fundie, and 10 being an evolutionary biologist, I would consider myself perhaps a 6 or 7.

 

[ronburgundy]

But if you do not have any evidence either way, then the chances are in fact equal, given the current state of knowledge. Outside of the multi-generational selection pressures that are not in play in a single generation difference, the possible factors that might constrain the beaks to be longer are no greater than those that might constrain them to be shorter.
Thus, they cancel out and are equal odds.
That is the nature of "chances". They are different depending on whether it is before or after specific relevant knowledge is known.

The bottom line is that with the given information, equal odds is the best prediction and the most consistent with an understanding of evolution.

BTW, let's stop with the personal attacks and condescension. I know Loren started it with his "you Flunk" comment, but there is nothing in this thread people should be getting emotional or personal about.

Wrong.

That is not how it works.

The odds either way cannot be determined.

That is not equivalent to saying the odds are equal.

Not close.


In terms of evolution, a certain species of bird may develop a long beak because something in their genome makes it more likely, while another species might develop claws and a sharp cutting beak because their genome makes that more likely.

Once you have complete organisms you are not dealing with blank slates where change of any kind in any direction is equally likely.

But you have no idea whether a long or a short beak is more likely in this particular species, so the only relevant odds are those that are averaged across all features of all species varying in one direction or the other. Odds are not some stable property of things but rather refer to what a mind can expect/predict about those things. Odds change with knowledge. Odds at some aggregated can always be determined, and they apply to more specific events unless there is event specific knowledge that modifies those odds.

So, since you have no knowledge that is specific to this species' beak length, the odds that apply are at a more general level averaging across length of any feature of all species. Within a universe of features where some are disposed toward getting longer, some shorter, and some with no systematic tendency, then any particular feature has equal odds unless their is specific knowledge to suggest otherwise.

It is no different than the odds that odds that you are taller or shorter than the average of the human population. The odds depend on whether any more specific info about you is known. IF not, then the odds are 50/50.

 

[untermensche]

Wrong.

That is not how it works.

The odds either way cannot be determined.

That is not equivalent to saying the odds are equal.

Not close.


In terms of evolution, a certain species of bird may develop a long beak because something in their genome makes it more likely, while another species might develop claws and a sharp cutting beak because their genome makes that more likely.

Once you have complete organisms you are not dealing with blank slates where change of any kind in any direction is equally likely.

But you have no idea whether a long or a short beak is more likely in this particular species

Period. There is nothing more to say.

so the only relevant odds are those that are averaged across all features of all species varying in one direction or the other.

Nonsense.

The relevant odds are the actual odds.

And if you cannot figure them out you cannot say anything about them. You cannot transpose the odds of other things happening into the place of the odds of a specific event happening.

That is not evolutionary theory at all. It is not rational.

Admit it's a horribly worded and irrational point and be done with it.

 

[ronburgundy]

But you have no idea whether a long or a short beak is more likely in this particular species

Period. There is nothing more to say.

so the only relevant odds are those that are averaged across all features of all species varying in one direction or the other.

Nonsense.

The relevant odds are the actual odds.

And if you cannot figure them out you cannot say anything about them. You cannot transpose the odds of other things happening into the place of the odds of a specific event happening.

Yes you can, that is what odds are all about. If you know everything that determines a truly specific event (which means a singular event that only happens once), then you don't need "odds" at all. You can simple deduce with certainty what is going to happen. Odds are entirely about taking information that is not specific to a particular event and applying them to determine the likelihood of possible outcomes.

Every time anyone has ever spoken about the odds of anything, they are going from the more general to the specific in applying what is known at the aggregate level to what is unknown at the more specific level.

 

[untermensche]

Period. There is nothing more to say.

so the only relevant odds are those that are averaged across all features of all species varying in one direction or the other.

Nonsense.

The relevant odds are the actual odds.

And if you cannot figure them out you cannot say anything about them. You cannot transpose the odds of other things happening into the place of the odds of a specific event happening.

Yes you can, that is what odds are all about. If you know everything that determines a truly specific event (which means a singular event that only happens once), then you don't need "odds" at all. You can simple deduce with certainty what is going to happen. Odds are entirely about taking information that is not specific to a particular event and applying them to determine the likelihood of possible outcomes.

Every time anyone has ever spoken about the odds of anything, they are going from the more general to the specific in applying what is known at the aggregate level to what is unknown at the more specific level.

You have not defended your position with this.

You cannot speak of the odds of any event from complete ignorance.

You cannot talk about the odds of a beak getting longer from complete ignorance.

And some human may look at a long beak and think that is what gives a bird an evolutionary advantage but the truth may be very different.

 

[ronburgundy]

Period. There is nothing more to say.

so the only relevant odds are those that are averaged across all features of all species varying in one direction or the other.

Nonsense.

The relevant odds are the actual odds.

And if you cannot figure them out you cannot say anything about them. You cannot transpose the odds of other things happening into the place of the odds of a specific event happening.

Yes you can, that is what odds are all about. If you know everything that determines a truly specific event (which means a singular event that only happens once), then you don't need "odds" at all. You can simple deduce with certainty what is going to happen. Odds are entirely about taking information that is not specific to a particular event and applying them to determine the likelihood of possible outcomes.

Every time anyone has ever spoken about the odds of anything, they are going from the more general to the specific in applying what is known at the aggregate level to what is unknown at the more specific level.

You have not defended your position with this.

You cannot speak of the odds of any event from complete ignorance.

You cannot talk about the odds of a beak getting longer from complete ignorance.

And some human may look at a long beak and think that is what gives a bird an evolutionary advantage but the truth may be very different.

You are the only one talking about anything from complete ignorance.

I am talking about using knowledge at the more general and aggregate level to determine the odds of a more specific event. In addition to the knowledge I already mentioned, there is knowledge that almost all physical features of organisms vary in their length along a normally distributed curve, such that randomly selected instances are most likely to be near the mean/median/mode of that curve where there are equal numbers of other instances with greater and lesser length of that feature.
Without additional information that indicates these birds are atypical from what is generally true, the odds are that the parent birds are near the median, making the odd that any other birds (whether their offspring or not) have a longer or shorter beak (or any other feature) about 50/50.

 

[Treedbear]

... and occasionally that can throw off a person that is over-thinking it or assumes they are being tricked. ...

Yeah, that's me for sure.

I was the same kind of test taker. I fought with my teachers all the time about why my answers were correct. I usually won, and once got a paid research position out of it

Now that I've spend some time constructing and revising other people's tests, I realize that when you have to go that far to make the answer correct, it's not the intended answer but just a flaw which are hard to completely avoid.

Maybe it serves to reward those who have the motivation to defend their own thinking and penalizes those too timid to speak up. Survival of the fittest and all that. But the possibility of getting a trick question is really just counterproductive.

 

[untermensche]

Period. There is nothing more to say.

so the only relevant odds are those that are averaged across all features of all species varying in one direction or the other.

Nonsense.

The relevant odds are the actual odds.

And if you cannot figure them out you cannot say anything about them. You cannot transpose the odds of other things happening into the place of the odds of a specific event happening.

Yes you can, that is what odds are all about. If you know everything that determines a truly specific event (which means a singular event that only happens once), then you don't need "odds" at all. You can simple deduce with certainty what is going to happen. Odds are entirely about taking information that is not specific to a particular event and applying them to determine the likelihood of possible outcomes.

Every time anyone has ever spoken about the odds of anything, they are going from the more general to the specific in applying what is known at the aggregate level to what is unknown at the more specific level.

You have not defended your position with this.

You cannot speak of the odds of any event from complete ignorance.

You cannot talk about the odds of a beak getting longer from complete ignorance.

And some human may look at a long beak and think that is what gives a bird an evolutionary advantage but the truth may be very different.

You are the only one talking about anything from complete ignorance.

I am talking about using knowledge at the more general and aggregate level to determine the odds of a more specific event. In addition to the knowledge I already mentioned, there is knowledge that almost all physical features of organisms vary in their length along a normally distributed curve, such that randomly selected instances are most likely to be near the mean/median/mode of that curve where there are equal numbers of other instances with greater and lesser length of that feature.
Without additional information that indicates these birds are atypical from what is generally true, the odds are that the parent birds are near the median, making the odd that any other birds (whether their offspring or not) have a longer or shorter beak (or any other feature) about 50/50.

I have assigned no odds from complete ignorance.

But saying something is 50:50 from complete ignorance is assigning odds.

You fail in your understanding of evolution.

 

[fromderinside]

You fail in your understanding of evolution.

As do you by neglecting the thumb of entropy on the evolutionary scale.

 

[untermensche]

You fail in your understanding of evolution.

As do you by neglecting the thumb of entropy on the evolutionary scale.

I neglect nothing.

That is why I recognize the impossibility of assigning odds first to a mutation that effects change and then to the direction of that change.

Entropy does not favor a long beak.

Nor does it determine how mutations might effect an existing genome.