3 ms·
Dawkins hasn't been relevant in over a decade(s). In fact, biotech will completely wipe the essentialism of 20th century minded researchers anyway.
by aiscapehumanity 5y ago
Dawkins hasn't been relevant in over a decade(s).
In fact, biotech will completely wipe the essentialism of 20th century minded researchers anyway.
- spfzero 5y agoWell 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.
- aiscapehumanity 5y agoI'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.
- aiscapehumanity 5y agoOk 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.
- rightbyte 5y ago> 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".