Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Giant, fungus-like organism may be a completely unknown branch of life

livescience.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 135 posts

Re: Giant, fungus-like organism may be a completely unknown branch of life

#101

Post by dreamcompiler »

Ultimatt wrote: post #73
dreamcompiler wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then there are viruses, which don't show up on the tree of life at all because there's no consensus that they even constitute "life."

Pretty sure anyone who knows anything about viruses would say they are alive. Or at least as alive as parasitic nano archaea with genomes smaller than the viruses living right next to them... The philosophical way to look at it is humans aren't alive in the space between planets they live inside these little hard shells, then when they get to a planet they go wild using all the other resources around them made of bio…

This guy agrees with you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgS1Lwr8gq8

Re: Giant, fungus-like organism may be a completely unknown branch of life

#102

Post by andrewflnr »

hydrogen7800 wrote: post #94
andrewflnr wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really hard to answer without tackling the classification question head on. Do you mean groups that "would have" been considered a domain if humans had been around at the time? Or groups that are in some sense different from other domains to the same degree those domains are from each other? Whether we tag something as a domain also depends on its abundance and/or visibility. I bet if you take dug into microor…

In my draft reply, I was going to add "is this even the right question", meaning "is the taxonomy more of a human construct than a natural one". It seems the answer is yes. >Or groups that are in some sense different from other domains to the same degree those domains are from each other? This.

I'm not a biologist, and especially not a microbiologist, so you should take what I say with a decent chunk of salt. That said, microbes are so wildly diverse that that version of the question sounds a lot like "are there any big extinct clades of microbes", which, I don't know, microbes are pretty persistent. But probably.

As for macroscopic life, there are some Ediacaran critters like rangeomorphs and tribrachidium that (to my knowledge) are not conclusively associated with any existing domain. So who knows about those guys.

Re: Giant, fungus-like organism may be a completely unknown branch of life

#103

Post by tremon »

alexey-salmin wrote: post #21
calibas wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children can memorize all 50 US state capitals, they can memorize a handful of scientific names. If we really wanted to, we could teach them a much more accurate view of the tree of life. Also, I don't think the four-kingdom system has been taught in schools for a while? I went to high school in the late 90s and it wasn't taught then. It's strange to see people promoting it online in 2025. If adults want to remain ig…

I strongly disagree. It's necessary to teach oversimplified things to small minds, even oversimplified to the extent of being incorrect. It's unlikely you understand relativistic mechanics unless you learn and practice Newtonian for a few years, then many people stop there and never go for relativism. It's unlikely you understand Peano axioms without first spending years just working with numbers, completely disregar…

It's necessary to teach oversimplified things to small minds, even oversimplified to the extent of being incorrect.

Please get off your elitist horse. "Small minds" has nothing to do with it, it is mostly a matter of topic specialization. You even acknowledge this yourself in the next few paragraphs.

Also, as attested by another current front page story (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43470138), it's incorrect even when talking about children.

Re: Giant, fungus-like organism may be a completely unknown branch of life

#104

Post by tremon »

hydrogen7800 wrote: post #74

Discussions about classifying the domains of life aside, this article implies that there was, or could have been entire domains that are now extinct. Is this the case?

Depends on how wide your definition on "domain" is. Most of the dinosaur lineages have gone extinct, it's not too wild an assumption to assume the same is true for entire lineages of other species. So the safe answer to your question is "probably, yes".

Re: Giant, fungus-like organism may be a completely unknown branch of life

#105

Post by GioM »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #13
calibas wrote: post #9

> with eukarya containing all multicellular organisms within the four kingdoms of fungi, animals, plants and protists. This bugs me so much. The four-kingdom system should have died out decades ago, it's absurdly wrong. For one thing, fungi and animals should be together (opisthokonts) if you're dividing eukaryotes into the major groups. If you consider genetics, there's no such thing as "protists", they're just a wh…

And then there are viruses, which don't show up on the tree of life at all because there's no consensus that they even constitute "life."

I feel like what trips people up is the abstraction layer.

Viruses are abstracted on top of other living things in the same way that animals are abstracted on top of plants, in that they both require the lower layer of abstraction for their basic survival.

Re: Giant, fungus-like organism may be a completely unknown branch of life

#106

Post by alexey-salmin »

tremon wrote: post #103
alexey-salmin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree. It's necessary to teach oversimplified things to small minds, even oversimplified to the extent of being incorrect. It's unlikely you understand relativistic mechanics unless you learn and practice Newtonian for a few years, then many people stop there and never go for relativism. It's unlikely you understand Peano axioms without first spending years just working with numbers, completely disregar…

It's necessary to teach oversimplified things to small minds, even oversimplified to the extent of being incorrect. Please get off your elitist horse. "Small minds" has nothing to do with it, it is mostly a matter of topic specialization. You even acknowledge this yourself in the next few paragraphs. Also, as attested by another current front page story ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43470138 ), it's incorrec…

What's your point then?

All minds alike, big and small, benefit from simplification. I was replying to a comment that specifically referenced "small minds", that's all.

Re: Giant, fungus-like organism may be a completely unknown branch of life

#107

Post by [deleted] »

tremon wrote: post #103
alexey-salmin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I strongly disagree. It's necessary to teach oversimplified things to small minds, even oversimplified to the extent of being incorrect. It's unlikely you understand relativistic mechanics unless you learn and practice Newtonian for a few years, then many people stop there and never go for relativism. It's unlikely you understand Peano axioms without first spending years just working with numbers, completely disregar…

It's necessary to teach oversimplified things to small minds, even oversimplified to the extent of being incorrect. Please get off your elitist horse. "Small minds" has nothing to do with it, it is mostly a matter of topic specialization. You even acknowledge this yourself in the next few paragraphs. Also, as attested by another current front page story ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43470138 ), it's incorrec…

[deleted]

Re: Giant, fungus-like organism may be a completely unknown branch of life

#108

Post by roughly »

Acknowledging this is a pre-print, but it is _wild_ that we can do this kind of analysis on a species that went extinct nearly a third of a billion years before the first hominids emerged. Every now and again I'm reminded of just how far we've extended our sensorium as a species.

Re: Giant, fungus-like organism may be a completely unknown branch of life

#109

Post by Izkata »

ivell wrote: post #60
TeMPOraL wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except encryption is nothing like a lock, and "stealing data" is a problematic term, as it's stretching the concept of theft way past its common meaning - it's using the term "stealing" in the exact same way people saying "software piracy is stealing" are. So that's already providing completely twisted mental model to kids. And it stems in big part from trying to pass one specific application as an answer to what the…

Substitution is a new concept for kids. Not something they can readily understand. So you need to explain that in terms of a game. Kids know what secrets are. But from their point of view, why even talk about it if it is secret? Why can't we go to another place and talk secretly? Why do we need to talk secrets in public using substitution? Since they do not see obvious need for it in their daily life and there are wo…

Encryption might not even need much any explanation, just using familiar terms: kids come up with "secret languages" all the time between friends and siblings.

Re: Giant, fungus-like organism may be a completely unknown branch of life

#110

Post by mmooss »

f1shy wrote: post #37
mmooss wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The exact list is up for debate, and currently undergoing change. My strong impression is that even the roots of the tree are debated, with competing models that often change. > The four-kingdom system should have died out decades ago First, hopefully not! :) Second, I think it's used because it's the last stable model. Third, it's a model that the public can understand - theres no point in even trying to use "Arch…

At which point started to be important in science that “public can understand”? I think if something is a better explanation for the reality, we ahould go for it, even if it is difficult for the public. Disclaimer: in this case I have absolutely no idea what is better. But the rationale seems wrong.

We can and, IMHO, should do both. Scientists explaining physical realities, such as gravity, don't use advanced mathematics - it would be pointless.
Post reply on HN