Hacker News Reader

Dawkins hasn't been relevant in over a decade(s). In fact, biotech will completely wipe the essentialism of 20th century minded researchers anyway.

View on HN

Well I suppose Einstein and Newton have also not been relevant for over a decade in your opinion. Dawkins' achievements are part of the foundation of 21st century "biotech".

Can you go into detail on your interpretation of this 20th century essentialism that's going to be completely wiped out? Genuinely interested.

I'm just saying George Church has been more relevant. If you want to take physics into consideration, then obviously the standard model is showing its age.

Ok rationalist. Obviously Dawkins has stopped reading papers, there's a strong basis that neural architecture variation is present among transgender individuals. Obviously Dawkins hasn't done his due diligence.

> neural architecture variation

What does that even mean.

Also, if I understand what you write correctly, is not preference of red apples over green also a "neural architecture variation".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com