3 ms·
Yes, obviously. But I am honestly baffled here. I mean, when did anyone really seriously argue otherwise? Isn't that already universal knowledge what you are de
by milankovic 8y ago
Yes, obviously.
But I am honestly baffled here. I mean, when did anyone really seriously argue otherwise? Isn't that already universal knowledge what you are describing here?
(Well, depends a bit on the definitions, I'd still say that ants are organisms, but so is the ant colony, and yes, you always have to see the bigger picture)
I don't get what the NYT is trying to achieve with their "reporting" here.
(BTW, the title here on HN has been changed, for anyone coming a bit later to these comment threads)
- lisper 8y ago> Isn't that already universal knowledge what you are describing here? Not only is it not universal knowledge, there are substantial cohorts of people who will vehemently deny that it is true. In fact, there are people asking for additional evidence in other branches of this very discussion!
- milankovic 8y agoNot sure, but I don't think any would qualify as fundamental denial. Just questions about some specifics, details, and their evidence etc.. I mean, nothing that would be relevant to the question at hand, in my opinion. Because the topic still is as linked above, and subsumed in this simple proposition: The genome varies from cell to cell. Great. What a discovery! More news at 11! Or is someone seriously arguing that genetic mutation is not universal knowledge? (Excluding "flat-earth" level stuff, but I would assume that as given on HN. Maybe I am wrong again)
- lisper 8y ago> Or is someone seriously arguing that genetic mutation is not universal knowledge? Well, no. But there are a lot of people who vehemently deny that humans are in any way analogous to ants.