Talk:Evolution/Archive 10

message: I believe one or more important types of biological evolution are missing from this article. See Horizontal gene transfer, Antigenic shift (important in current H5N1 avian flu problem), Reassortment. WAS 4.250 20:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would classify those as mutations, and as I repeatedly have to emphasise, mutations do not cause evolution.  Mutations are like background noise; they are too few in number to effect any noticeable change, even big mutations (1/N=~0).  Evolution only occurs when a mechanism of evolution (i.e. selection, drift or migration) acts on a novel mutation to change that frequency upwards.  If that is not enough, a high level of mutations required to produce evolution induces sterility in fruit flies.— Dunc|☺ 21:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you want to be technical, since evolution is defined as change in allele frequency, mutations necessarily cause evolution.  Of course, what we mostly care about isn't evolution in general, but adaptative evolution, which mutations alone are not sufficient to explain, and where selection becomes vital.  I think we would do well to talk more about the limited role of mutation, both because it belongs and because it would be good for the article to anticipate and resolve the common confusion about evolution being random just because mutations are.  We should certainly list the various sources of mutation, as well as things like crossing over, which aren't mutations as such but can have much the same effect. Alienus 23:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But do mutations change allele frequency?  Only in extremely small populations - the change from 1.0 to 0.999 (a mutation in a population of 500 diploids) isn't really a change in allele frequency - 0.999 is not significantly different from 1.0.  As for crossing over - does it actually split genes?  Guettarda 23:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I made no claims about the magnitude of the change, just that it constitutes change of some sort, hence qualifies as evolution.  Having thought about it, it occurs to me that mutation can introduce a brand new allele, which may then become quite popular if it is selected for.  Consider a mutant fly with resistance to DDT; a significant bit of evolution, triggered by a fit mutation.  Again, it's something of a technicality, but I think a meaningful one.  As for crossing over, it can definitely cause gross chromosomal abnormalities, which certainly qualifies as a mutation, and I seem to remember that it can split genes, thus potentially changing or even creating alleles.  If I'm right about this, it should be mentioned somewhere.  And if I'm wrong, that fact likewise deserves mention.  Alienus23:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you define mutation evolution as "change in gene frequency" it has to mean significant change.  Gene frequencies are not static - you will, necessarily have some variation from generation to generation.  Change has to be significant change in order to call it evolution.  Otherwise evolution becomes a trivial concept.  Guettarda 19:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think of mutation as a "change in gene frequency" - instead it is the creation of a gene when neither of the parents had the gene. Trivial changes like the variation from generation to generation are what evolution is all about, and evolution itself is trivial.  Natural selection and the modern synthesis are more complicated and interesting. What is really interesting is that those trivial changes from one generation to another are not entirely random, because the more fit organisms have a better chance to increase the frequency of their own genes in the population. With enough time the trivial changes are not so trivial. --Ignignot 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Meant to say "evolution", not "mutation".  Oops.  Guettarda 05:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think crossing over can produce a new allele but doesn't qualify as mutation.  I may well be wrong about this.  Alienus 17:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed about the gene dupe stuff; we might want to mention myoglobin and hemoglobin as an example.  Another good one, documented in a recent Dawkins book, is duplication of the genes for the light-sensitive chemical (name eludes me at the moment) in retinal cones.  As for the mutation issue, see above and also, how about a broader heading, like "Sources of genetic variation"? Alienus 17:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found the article lacking too. "Sources of genetic variation" seems a good idea. -- Ec5618 17:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, we've resolved to pin the bell on the cat.  Now all we need is for someone to step up and implement what we've agreed upon.  Any takers?  Alienus 19:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing from the article

message: Why nothing on embryology? (unsigned)
:The study of embryological development? I have heard that the embryos of hmans and other mammals and even birds look strikingly similar in the first stages of development. Humans have tails and slits that look like gills (but are not). Oddly, embryo doesn't say anything on the subject, and neither does embryology.
:Still, I don't quite see why the evolution article should include information about embryos. -- Ec5618 15:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Embryology/comparative embryology should be mentioned in evidence for evolution but that page is a bit of a mess. — Dunc|☺ 17:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Embryology

message: First off, let me begin by saying that I am a supporter of the theory of evolution and abiogenesis as well, if that's reassuring at all. I am not suggesting there is evidence or an argument proving evolution false.
Still, however, there is a big amount of people claiming evolution is nothing more but a load of rubbish. Here are the numbers of adherents to various religions, taken from the article on religion:
 1. Christianity: 1.9 billion
 2. Islam: 1.3 billion
 3. Hinduism: 1 billion
 4. Buddhism: 400 million
 5. Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
 6. Primal-Indigenous: 300 million
 7. African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
 8. Sikhism: 23 million
 9. Spiritism: 15 million
 10. Judaism: 14 million
 11. Bahá'í: 7 million
 12. Jainism: 4.2 million
 13. Shinto: 4 million
 14. Cao Dai: 4 million
 15. Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
 16. Sant Mat / Surat Shabd Yoga : 2 million
 17. Tenrikyo: 2 million
 18. Unification Movement: 1.5 million
 19. Ayyavazhi: 1.2 million
 20. Neo-Paganism: 1 million
 21. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
 22. Rastafari movement: 600 thousand
The first two of these for example, Christianity and Islam, are held to contradict evolution by the majority of their followers. Aside from groups like Creationists, both the Bible and the Qoran mention God creating the various species. With that, rendering evolution compatible with these faiths requires a rather liberal interpretations of God's word.
Thus, with so many fierce deniers of the theory, I believe that it would be highly beneficial to provide a list of some common counter arguments and show why they do not disprove evolution(if they do not). The article on the technocratic movement has such as a section the format of which I believe could be used.
I understand that a wikipedia article is not a discussion forum, but an article on a theory as controversial as evolution cannot be complete without some information given on the origins of that controversy.
: That is covered in the social effect section.  As is explained there, accepting evolutionary biology as science is not viewed as contradicting Christianity by the major mainstream Christian churches, who do not follow Biblical innerancy, along with many other religions, including many of the other examples you cite above.  Please check your facts.
:As for scientific arguments against evolution, there are none. — Dunc|☺ 21:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  See also creation-evolution controversy--Nowa 22:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: All you need is right here.  That's the best place on the web debunking the common and not-so-common creationist arguments.  We would never even get this Wikipedia article within a shadow of approaching the depth and utility of that page, so it's best not to try - just link it.  --Cyde 10:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't think the author is suggesting we need to include the anti-evolutionary issues as fact but that they are sufficiently widespread that they must be acknowledged in the context of this article. I agree, however, that keeping them to a different page is preferable - if only to keep the article manageable! --Davril2020 13:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version of the article contains a section on "Social controversies" which links to relevant articles about religious and other objections to evolution. The primary article on evolution should be about what evolution is, just as the primary article on AIDS should be on mainstream, expert assessments of the disease rather than the more fringe theories (which are linked to at the end of the article). Whether something is "mainstream" or "fringe" in this sense has no relationship to the number of non-experts who believe in it.  --Fastfission 16:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that phrase "The truth of X has nothing to do with the number of non-experts who believe in it"--Nowa 22:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arguments "disproving" evolution. 

message: Can someone provide a reference for the "50% of all genera" figure? I'd be inclined to say the number is actually much, much higher than this. Graft 22:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinction 

message: Misconceptions about evolution and how it works:
1. "Evolution is a theory about the origin of life."
2. "Evolution is like a climb up a ladder of progress; organisms are always getting better."
3. "Evolution means that life changed 'by chance.'"
4. "Natural selection involves organisms 'trying' to adapt."
5. "Natural selection gives organisms what they 'need.'"
Misconceptions about the evidence for evolution:
1. "Evolution is 'just' a theory."
2. "Evolution is a theory in crisis and is collapsing as scientists lose confidence in it."
3. "Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution."
4. "Evolutionary theory is incomplete and is currently unable to give a total explanation of life."
5. "The theory of evolution is flawed, but scientists won't admit it."
6. "Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable."
7. "Most biologists have rejected 'Darwinism' (i.e., no longer really agree with the ideas put forth by Darwin and Wallace)."
Misconceptions about the implications of evolution:
1. "Evolution leads to immoral behavior. If children are taught that they are animals, they will behave like animals."
2. "Evolution supports the idea that 'might makes right' and rationalizes the oppression of some people by others."
Misconceptions about evolution and religion:
1. "Evolution and religion are incompatible."
Misconceptions about teaching evolution:
1. "Teachers should teach 'both sides' and let students decide for themselves."
2. "Evolution is itself 'religious,' so requiring teachers to teach evolution violates the First Amendment."
from  WAS 4.250 17:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't put together this list. I saw an article about a suit about some web site, looked at the web site to find out what they were sueing about and ran across the list above. Again, the list AND RESPONSES TO THE ITEMS are at . WAS 4.250 20:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You say "So what?". I doubt you have any clue how happy - elated even - your comment made me. Thank you for every word. You have no idea the roadblocks I've faced. People who want to revert because I quoted rather than rephrased. It's been crazy. That said, trying to be legal everywhere is important.  Slrubenstein, Slrubenstein, Slrubenstein; let me enjoy this moment before the fair use vultures decend to destroy us.... WAS 4.250 21:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misconceptions

message: this is the britannica outline with some wording modified. this may be a starting point for working on the structure of this article. feel free to change things below and build the outline for this article starting with this template. --Rikurzhen 06:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're suggesting plagiarism on a massive scale?  Britannica isn't the end-all and be-all, by the way.  --Cyde Weys [u]  [t]  [c] 06:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: obviously not, but the FAC removal mentioned Britannica as a standard against which to compare this article. in fact, i believe we have material that covers most of this outline already and merely need to find a good organization. --Rikurzhen 07:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  britannica 

message: People seem to have accepted the top level restructring, so I guess the next step is whether or not more restructuring is done. I propose candidates for restructuring the subsection "Science of evolution" be presented here or actually be done in the article (we can always revert). (Talking about it first is always good).
What we have now is:
    * 2.1 Science: fact and theory
    * 2.2 Who studies evolution?
    * 2.3 Ancestry of organisms
    * 2.4 History of life
    * 2.5 Basic mechanisms of evolution
    * 2.6 Adaptation
    * 2.7 Speciation and extinction
The britanica example/model provided above has its "science of evolution" section divided into these 3 parts:
*Process of evolution
*Species and speciation
*Molecular evolution
WAS 4.250 01:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: restructuring even more?

message: also, maybe evowiki can help us. however, their license may not be compatible. --Rikurzhen 07:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  evowiki 

message: this will probably come in useful soon:
http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010056
Humans and chimpanzees diverged approximately 6 million years ago, making the chimpanzee the closest extant relative to modern humans. The characterization of sequence changes both at the nucleotide and the structural level is therefore important for the understanding of primate evolution, including human-specific traits. At the nucleotide level, the identity of the genomes has been estimated to be 98% to 99% [1–5], excluding insertions and deletions and other small rearrangements. The chimpanzee Chromosome 22 (PTR22), which is orthologous to human Chromosome 21(HSA21), was the first to be sequenced and the majority of the rest of the genome is represented as a draft assembly [2,6]. The exact nucleotide substitution rate for the alignment of these sequences is 1.23% (excluding insertions and deletions)[2]. Taking insertion and deletion events into account, the sequence identity has been estimated to be about 95% [7].
# Fujiyama A, Watanabe H, Toyoda A, Taylor TD, Itoh T, et al. (2002) Construction and analysis of a human-chimpanzee comparative clone map. Science 295: 131–134. Find this article online
# Li WH, Saunders MA (2005) Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome. Nature 437: 69–87. Find this article online
# Ebersberger I, Metzler D, Schwarz C, Paabo S (2002) Genome-wide comparison of DNA sequences between humans and chimpanzees. Am J Hum Genet 70: 1490–1497. Find this article online
# Hacia JG, Makalowski W, Edgemon K, Erdos MR, Robbins CM, et al. (1998) Evolutionary sequence comparisons using high-density oligonucleotide arrays. Nat Genet 18: 155–158. Find this article online
# Thomas JW, Touchman JW, Blakesley RW, Bouffard GG, Beckstrom-Sternberg SM, et al. (2003) Comparative analyses of multi-species sequences from targeted genomic regions. Nature 424: 788–793. Find this article online
# Watanabe H, Fujiyama A, Hattori M, Taylor TD, Toyoda A, et al. (2004) DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22. Nature 429: 382–388. Find this article online
# Britten RJ (2002) Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99: 13633–13635. Find this article online
:Bo-ring. So what? None of this is especially new. Graft 04:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An older claim now has an overly prominent position in the article. I found this to update it but haven't gotten around to it. --Rikurzhen 04:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  human chimp comparisons 

message: "Genetic data indicates that humans and chimpanzees have highly similar DNA sequences. At the nucleotide level, the identity of the genomes has been estimated to be 98% to 99%, or about 95% when insertions, deletions and other small rearrangements are taken into account." has been added to the article, obviously from the prior talk subsection. I don't understand how insertions and deletions are "small" when the smallest unit of information is the nucleotide. It seems to me that the "real" number is the 95% number. The only way 99% would a more real number is if the LARGER changes simply moved blocks of data, like rearranging chapters in a book or the order of subroutines in a computer program, so their use as instructions was unaltered. But we know little about the meta-code that instructs the cell on the timing of calling those subroutines (making the RNA that makes the protein), so even if the protein making nucleotide sequences are 99% the same, the difference in the other nucleotides making it add up to 95%, we simply don't know how much of that so-called junk is actually meta-code. Even long chains of junk can be metacode by changing the physical locations of other things. And remember, this code self executes because it IS physical. Can anyone clarify this and justify using a number other than 95%? Thanks. WAS 4.250 16:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good reasoning about why 95% is more functionally relavant (that's why I added it), but we do probably need to keep mention of 98.5% (although not necessarily as the first sentence of the article). The reason is that 98.5% is difference due to "substitutions" for human-chimp divergence, and substitutions are what the molecular clock calculations are based on. Also, we need to mention it because everyone has already heard the "old saw" about 98.5% and would be confused if we didn't mention it. --Rikurzhen 17:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it would make sense to give the old number saying it is an old number, give the more up to date 99% (or whatever) number that is useful as a molecular clock and say that's what it is good for and give the up to date 95% (or whatever) number and say it measures all the changes including those that we know affect gene function and those that may or may not ("junk genes"). Make sense? WAS 4.250 17:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these numbers really depend on what you're interested in measuring and have more to do with setting a competent standard than anything else. If you want to compare divergence between human/chimp and something else, you want a number that works well universally. Percent identity is actually an extraordinarily shitty way to look at divergence, since it is a function of alignable sequence. That is, we say there is 99% identity between human/chimp based on substitutions and 69% between human/mouse based on substitutions. But there is much less alignable sequence between human and mouse, so the TRUE divergence between human and mouse is underrepresented, skewing that percent-identity figure higher. A much better figure to use (the one favored by most evolutionary biologists) is something like the number of synonymous coding substitutions per site between the two species. But, obviously, this is a much more technical number and not really suitable for presentation to the public. Thus, the shitty number, percent identity, is used. Since it's shitty, we might as well make it as simple as possible and take percent identity of substitutions. That's the best defense I can give for percent identity according to substitutions. Graft 21:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, please, please, please make the necessary changes to the content of the article. WAS 4.250 23:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Unsurprisingly that article at AiG is false.  98.77% similar means exactly that: 98.77% similar.  How would one even take insertions and deletions into account and ignore them?  How do you even know what is an insertion and what is a deletion?  Humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor whose DNA we do not have.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't understand

message: All of my comments have been removed (please do not reinsert them).
----
Can you suggest an improvement to this sentence: "The chemical evolution from self-catalytic chemicals to life (see Origin of life) is not a part of biological evolution." that introduces the subsection "History of life" in the article? Putting in all of that would be too much of a diversion from the topic of the article (biological evolution). WAS 4.250 19:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is about biological evolution, not "chemical evolution", which is a term I am hesitant to endorse because I have never heard any scientists talking about it, only creationists.  Creationists like to conflate other parts of science with evolution so they are easier to cast doubt on and attack (at least in the mind of creationist adherents).  They will conflate simple astrophysical phenomena like supernovae and call them "cosmological evolution" and attack it.  This page is about biological evolution only, not the grand scheme creationist definition of evolution which encompasses pretty much every field of science that the Book of Genesis conflicts with.  --Cyde Weys [u]  [t]  [c] 01:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermodynamics (removed) 

message: Can anyone provide and unimpeachable example of a new metazoan species (e.g. not bacterial, viruses, etc.) emerging by natural selection in the past 200 years?  I think the presentation of this fact would strengthen the article.--Awon 02:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To reply to the question at top, the article already mentions the Hawthorn fly, which evolved in the 20th century and is a new species. QED. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Species

message: Err... So that was my big edit. One HUGE caveat: lots of material probably got deleted, so PLEASE compare and add stuff back that you think is important, but please respect the new organization and rewrite material as appropriate instead of merely cutting and pasting. Also, extensive rewriting and new text is probably required. For example, I didn't write much of a header for the "selection and adaptation" section.
Lots of new material as well; please review it. Graft 20:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning! Large reorganization 

message: Cyde wrote (in an edit summary)
:rv. to last version by Cyde; evolution is not "controversial" amongst scientists, and this is a science article
Old intro paragraph:
:Evolution is the controversial scientific theory that populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species. In biology, evolution is considered to be a "fact" by 99.8% of biologists, but as many as 5% of other scientists question the theory, and only about 15% of the general public (in America accepts it.
First, it's a controversial theory in terms of the public - not in science. No one said Biologists are fighting about it - although 5% of non-biologists polled disagree with it without raising much of a fuss. The article should clarify that the controversy (A) exists but (B) is not a controversy among biologists.
Second, there is no reason to censor the information that as many as 5% of other scientists question the theory, and only about 15% of the general public (in America accepts it. Uncle Ed 16:09, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ed, none of your edits are appropriate for the opening paragraph on the article about biological evolution.  Go put them in Creation-evolution controversy.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to relegate this information to Creation-evolution controversy, there should probably be a link to that article in the intro of this one. — goethean ॐ 16:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a link to Creation-evolution controversy, it's in the See Also section where it belongs.  It certainly should not be in the opening paragraph.  Or should we link to Flat Earth in the opening paragraph of Earth?  Teach the controversy!!  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And it is awful U.S.-centric to highlight one country's controversies in the heading of a general topic. Anyway, the "question the theory" part is highly confusing at best, misleading at worst. Does it mean "Question that evolution occurred?" or "Question the currently accepted mechanisms?" or "Question that it is responsible for all speciation?" or what? What kind of "scientists" are these? etc. --Fastfission 16:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Evolution isn't a theory, it's a phenomenon that can be observed, and a subject matter for a scientific theory and other investigations. I don't want to censor anything, but the religious argument over evolution has its own article and the additional facts you have found regarding adoption are more proper there. If they are important enough to understanding the controversy it might make sense to incorporate some of it in the short summary section in this article. However, brewing an edit war and accusing other editors of censorship, when we are just trying to make the best article possible, is unnecessarily antagonistic. Demi T/C 16:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why are you burying the link to Creation-evolution controversy? — goethean ॐ 16:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Buried? It has its own section. --Fastfission 16:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is frankly more than I think it deserves.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Why do you think the link to Creation-evolution controversy deserves to be mentioned in the opening paragraph?  Frankly I think it's less important than Sexual selection or Cladogenesis, which are also "buried" in the See Also section.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Of course evolution is a theory.  Have you never heard of "the theory of evolution"?  Of course, evolution is also a fact.  I suggest you read Stephen Jay Gould's seminal essay Evolution as Fact and Theory.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "undertanding the controversy"?  This isn't the controversy article.  Understanding it has zero to do with the introduction of "evolution". - Tεxτurε 19:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality dispute

message: I contend that this image's thumbnail should be no larger than 250px as an effort to remain friendly to users with small desktops.  The user can always still click through.  It's not feasible to try to portray all of the information that this image contains on the main page anyway, so it will always have to be clicked through.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:03, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of PhylogeneticTree.jpg 

message: Evidence of evolution needs attention as does the cognate section in this article. TalkOrigins has an extensive, copyrighted discussion. --Rikurzhen 01:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fancy way of saying it's aimed at creationists.  And if you want permission to use the comdesc FAQ, just post a message to talk.origins with a subject like, "Paging Douglas Theobald re: comdesc faq".  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 19:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Evidence for evolution]] needs attention 

message: Could someone who's into it clean up this "evidence of evolution" section? It's very choppy; ideally I think we should reorganize it according to a more coherent outline, but at the very least the choppiness (e.g. non-sequiturs like talking about sequence similarity and then jumping to the Miller-Urey experiment) should be fixed. Graft 20:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of evolution 

message: Err... did we agree on the addition of this misconception section while I wasn't looking? I'm not convinced it's a good idea, and I'd like to at least talk about it if not remove it. This is not the "Evolution FAQ"; this is also not EvoWiki, and this article's job is not to undo Christian evangelism. Graft 04:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A misconception section is not in itself inappropriate, but the FAQ format is. --Rikurzhen 05:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misconception section