How about the question:

What makes something interesting?

Interest is an emotion which motivates learning about something which is new and seemingly complex, thereby giving them the knowledge needed to be interested. Interest is often born out of misunderstanding and inspiration. However when somebody understands something, they often realise that it is rather simple and thus become uninterested. You often need to acquire some basic knowledge or experience to become interested in something.

Yes.

Earth's atmosphere contains over 20 times as much argon as carbon dioxide.

Yes.

A little learning is a dangerous thing. Lamarckian inheritance was never discredited. In his The Germ Plasm: A Theory of Inheritance, August Weismann, conductor of the famous mouse-tail amputation breeding experiments, clearly distinguished between the effects of injury, disuse, and environmental factors impinging on organisms during their development. Furthermore, he went on to state that environmental factors could well, in some cases, lead to heritable variation. There is a host of published and peer-reviewed, evidence, from Darwin's own experiments on earthworms to cutting edge research on tadpoles showing that it need not even involve nucleic acids in any way at all, demonstrating this. In contrast, it is the central dogma that has long been discredited; the notion of the fluid genome, for instance, is old hat to several, less indoctrinated, evolutionary biologists.

Darwin had no notion of genes or classical inheritance; nor did Weismann. In fact Darwin's own notion of 'blending inheritance' or panspermia was far more commensurate with Lamarck's proposed mode of evolution. Darwin and Lamarck were close friends and contemporaries.

In fact the so-called Modern Synthesis or 'Neo-Darwinism' is not just Darwinism minus Lamarckism. "It is hardly Darwinian at all."

Most striking about the theory of Natural Selection is not how different it is from Intelligent Design, but in fact how almost identical it is. Of course it differs in the particulars of its tenets. But it is likewise characerised by a whole raft of almost identical flaws in its patterns of reasoning, patterns of inference, its practitioners mistaking plausibility for validity, their mistaking statistically significant correlation for confirmation of causality, lack of evidence for the process as such, and its persistence as a concensus paradigm system simply because its what its gurus teach to their students, and the faith the students have in them.

Check out the literature. It would fill a feature.

Now there's an interesting fact or two.