Talk:List of common misconceptions

(Redirected from Talk:Common misconceptions)
Latest comment: 10 months ago by Macdonald-ross in topic Comment

Putting flags on the page change

Please do not put flags at the top of this long page. The sections are very uneven, and it makes sense to place flags on particular sections to draw attention to their difficulties. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Evolution and complexity change

40 or so years ago it was thought that overall amount of DNA, or total length of DNA must be good indices (~measures) of the complexity of a life form. In those days the old one gene-one enzyme rule of George Beadle & Ed Tatum was still being taught. This idea is now exploded by the discovery that most genes only code for a single polypeptide, and that even so active DNA (exons) is separated by sections of inactive DNA (introns). Functioning messenger RNA is built up from pieces of pre-messenger RNA by teeny organelles called spliceosomes in a process called RNA splicing. The result is a series of functioning messenger RNAs in ribosomes. These produce an array of enzymes or structural proteins. Several Nobel Prizes have been awarded for these discoveries.

The significance of all this is that many, many variant enzymes and structural proteins can be produced from a limited set of genes. The whole flexibility of antibody production depends on this constructional flexibility. Another consequence is that length or quantity of DNA is not a good measure of the 'complexity' of an organism.

This bears on the supposed 'misconception' that evolution does not result in greater complexity. Overall, it certainly does, unless one is prepared to say that a vertebrate is not more complex than a bacterium. I don't know of any biologist who would say that. What is true is that evolution does not always lead to greater complexity.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nuclear power change

I disagree with the changes made by ip:182.249.193.70. ([diff) The reasoning is inductive and does not prove anything. It's as if I said 'driving is safe' is a common misconception. Or that 'crossing the road is safe' is a misconception. I mean come on, you can't say that a couple of examples of accidents prove that something is unsafe. First of all, how do you define safe? Secondly, how do you evaluate this? The line should probably be removed. Yottie =talk= 15:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC) I did remove it, tho mainly cos it was in the wrong place. If you ask me the whole page should be deleted as it reads more like a trivia column than an encyclopaedia entry- some of the ' misconceptions' listed are far from common...182.249.193.70 (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reduction in size change

I have reduced its size by nearly a third. It was hard to edit, and slow to load and save (still is, but less so). Some of the items which were doubtful (as to whether they were common misconceptions) have been deleted, and others shortened. In a few cases the items solely referred to the U.S.A. and were also deleted as too ethnocentered. It's not quite as unencyclopedic as some editors have claimed, as a glance at the Further reading shows. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Complex change

I find this article hard to read in some places due to complexity. Frogger48 (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

If you tell us where, and what words or phrases you find complex, we might be able to help. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Mainly, in the section about science. It uses complex wording that is harder to understand. ex. In the section about black holes, it uses the word vicinity. I don't think that is Simple English. Frogger48 (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Frogger48 (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Current state of this Article change

I am going to put this here and ping @Macdonald-ross due to his role in the creation of this article.

The state of this article is, in my opinion, a wreck. I apologize for any offense given, but this article looks like Macdonald-Ross copied the 2011 corresponding english wiki article and pasted it here and then deleted a third of it based on arbitrary definitions of commonality of with little to no simplification. Throughout the entirety of this article do I see a single actual simplification, or at the very least, decent attempt at one. I am not sure why Macdonald-Ross stated to not include flags on top of the page, because the "sections are uneven" despite the fact that it is pretty clear that the article at large is a jumble of complex English terms.

There are, I believe, a few options we have from here.

One, not do anything. This is likely seeing as this talk page won't be seen by another active editor for another three years.

Two, nuke it. This article's information as a whole has remained, for the most part, untouched since 2011 so it would make sense to copy everything from the en article, simplify it, then put it here.

Three, simplify it. Rather than updating anything on the page, it could just be simplified by an editor. I would not recommend it seeing as it would be more beneficial to the article to have more, up-to-date information. MrMeAndMrMeLet's talk 04:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Comment change

I think this page is unwise, and I don't dislike anyone changing it. It is hard to verify, and not a good page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Return to "List of common misconceptions" page.