[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]

/edu/ - Education

'The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses.' - Karl Marx
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon

File: 1630868237667.jpg (952.98 KB, 1458x1977, Trofim_Lysenko_portrait.jpg)

 No.7295[View All]

i'm curious to learn about him, how catastrophic was he for soviet agriculture or was he actually not all that bad? i'd appreciate some reading material about this matter too thanks
145 posts and 27 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 1631748446111.png (154.1 KB, 637x186, ClipboardImage.png)

>Punctuated equilibrium has nothing to do with Lysenkos jumps in evolution and fits a lot better with Darwins theory of Natural Selection.
Wrong. You are just playing semantic games and definition mongering, again. Just because the Russian, German and English words aren't identical doesn't mean they were talking about different things.

>Over many generations these changes accumulate

Also wrong. When the environment changes suddenly there is a die off and the species bottlenecks through surviving variants that dominate the species in 2-4 generations.

> the existence of transitional fossils

Wrong. Transitional fossils are the exception and not representative of most species fossil records, as earlier pointed out. To prove smooth transitions between species as a rule you would have to show that the majority of species have smooth evolution, which is not supported by evidence.

>random mutations

Mutations are not random, that is psuedoscience.


did not read shit, but did lysenko really try and fail to turn one type of wheat into another? top kek


Yes and he totally succeeded. The Cia is trying to cover it up by purging rouge grain from wheatfields.


Wow. So he did it by planting in the fall and called it dialectical. Astounding


>the species bottlenecks through surviving variants
yes this also can be a factor, although it doesn't always happen. But How does that support your position?
>Transitional fossils are the exception
Yes, this logically follows from what I wrote
>not supported by evidence
I'd be thrilled to see your evidence for sudden jumps in evolution as Lysenko described them.
>Mutations are not random, that is psuedoscience
TOP KEK! They really don't teach any Biology at Yankee schools


> strongly supported the prediction that the phage-resistant mutations had a constant probability of occurring
so… not random

Complex systems are not "random" just because you can't describe them fully. We know exactly what the causes of mutations we just don't have the technology to control it yet so it is has no utility and is therefore not profitable.
Its really sad that you keep missing the point to reinforce and regurgite liberal dogma.

>The statement that mutations are random is both profoundly true and profoundly untrue at the same time. The true aspect of this statement stems from the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful.

> the idea that mutations are random can be regarded as untrue if one considers the fact that not all types of mutations occur with equal probability. Rather, some occur more frequently than others because they are favored by low-level biochemical reactions. These reactions are also the main reason why mutations are an inescapable property of any system that is capable of reproduction in the real world.



>so… not random
There is no link between the occurrence of these mutations and the presence of viruses. It follows that these mutations constantly have a chance of happening and are not a reaction to the viruses.
The second part of your post literally agrees with me.
I'm done. This is getting way to ridiculous even for my standards. Even eugeneics-kun isn't that retarded.


File: 1631830655097.png (336.66 KB, 700x360, ClipboardImage.png)


Someone brought up Vavilov, thought I'd drop this for people https://alexandr-palkin.livejournal.com/6991911.html


Thanks Very nice!

>Actually, the dispute between "Weismanists" and "neo-Darwinists" was purely academic. And this was not a dispute between genetics and antigenetics, but wasdispute between two directions in genetics.

>So there was no "persecution of genetics"! Weismanists had troubles, yes, but not at all because they were geneticists, but for a different reason: first, the waste of state money, and then an attempt to run over their scientific opponents with the involvement of foreign colleagues

>For example, for the introduction of the method of planting potatoes with the tops of tubers on March 22, 1943, T. D. Lysenko was awarded the Stalin Prize of the first degree.

>If someone does not know: this means cutting the tuber into parts, one eye for each and using them as planting material instead of the whole tuber. You can go even further - use for planting only the eye with a small fragment of the tuber - the top, and use the rest of the potato for food.

>But the date of the award says a lot - how this method helped save the country from hunger, helped the nation's food supply and ultimately win the war. Get one potato bush or five to ten bushes from one tuber, plus saved potatoes, which became truly "second bread" during the Second World War, is there a difference? For armchair science, probably none. And during the war - big, huge!

>Nobody says that Vavilov was a bad person. This is not why he was arrested and sent to prison (and not at all shot, as some believe).

>Vavilov's problem was not that he was a geneticist (Lysenko was also a geneticist, and this did not prevent him from receiving eight Orders of Lenin). And not even that he was wrong (in 1940 it was not yet obvious). The problem was the misuse of public money. Do you want to know how it was? Refer to primary sources, they are not classified yet.

>In fact, the processes against geneticists began with the fact that the plans declared by the Serebrovsky-Vavilov group for the development of new varieties in the five-year period 1932-1937 were not fulfilled.

>The state has never been a philanthropist in relation to science, it has always been an investor!

>Is always! And under socialism, and under capitalism, under any system, if a person takes money, promising a profit, but does not give this profit, he is punished. Wasted means stolen. "Stole, drank - to jail!"

>Sadly? In the case of Vavilov, yes.

>But true

>Why I.V. Stalin supported Lysenko, of course. Because he knew perfectly well that his works are beneficial to the country, and the Weismanists are useless.

>“As a result of many years of work, Dubinin“ enriched ”science with the“ discovery ”that in the composition of the fly population among fruit flies in Voronezh and its environs during the war there was an increase in the percentage of flies with some chromosomal differences and a decrease in other fruit flies with other differences in chromosomes.

>Dubinin is not limited to discoveries so "highly valuable" for theory and practice, obtained by him during the war, he sets further tasks for himself for the recovery period and writes: normal living conditions. "(Movement in the hall. Laughter).

>This is the typical Morganist "contribution" to science and practice before the war, during the war, and such are the prospects of Morganist "science" for the recovery period! (Applause)".

>So because of what all the fuss, for which Academician T.D. Lysenko was so much filth, abomination, lies poured out? Why slander a scientist who has done so much useful for our country? Why was it necessary to denigrate his name, undeservedly, unfairly, with persistence worthy of better application, to make him one of the most odious personalities of Russian science of the twentieth century?

>Here is perhaps one of the best answers:

>“To understand why against T.D. Lysenko in 1960-90. such a total information war was waged, one should pay attention to the social significance of the main concept defended by him - the possibility of changing heredity under the influence of changes in the living conditions of the organism.

>This position, which he confirmed on practical experiments, contradicted, however, the ideological attitudes of some influential groups who held beliefs about the innate and invariable superiority of some peoples (or social groups) over others.

>Criticism of Weismann's theory by T.D. Lysenko also contributed to the failure of eugenic projects that were actively promoted in the 1920s and 1930s by the leading Weismannian geneticists in the USSR. These projects, dividing the Soviet people into "valuable" and "second-rate", were close to the way of thinking of both the then Trotskyists - analogues of the German Nazis, their rival colleagues - and many liberals, their successors and often relatives. "


This person is very naive. Mainly, in assuming that scientists who opposed Lysenko were honest scientists who pursued their own theory. No, they were careerists who got put under the charge of a honest scientist who promoted other honest scientists, instead of careerists and cronies.

Stalin's great transformation of nature, digging of many new channels, raising dams, new hydroelectric plants, shelterbelts along those new waterways, huge growth of forests all over the South and into the Kazakhstan to combat hot winds from Soviet deserts - all of that was one big policy, Lysenko was an integral part of. Remember how randoms come all the time to these threads with the "lol planting together multiple trees will murder most of the seeds! Look how dumb Lysenko was!", meanwhile in real reality, the idea was to create a treeline sturdy enough to withstand and alter winds near the ground, so, planting trees closely in experiments produced tightly-knit crown that did exactly what was needed, so, henceforth Soviets planted treelines between their fields closely, multiple kinds of trees and shrubs in a certain order, highly-scientifically. They dug ponds to for enriching the soil, breeding fish and cooling the ground.

Now then, with all this context, imagine a scientist attacking Lysenko. Why is that scientist so dumb that he doesn't understand what Lysenko was working towards, and producing results in? How can a honest scientist be so hell-bent on attacking the dumbest strawman possible? Just look at what happened INSTEAD OF Stalin's - and Lysenko's - transformation of nature - Virgin Lands campaign, headed by those scientists finally freed from Lysenko's tyranny!

<“As a result of many years of work, Dubinin“ enriched ”science with the“ discovery ”that in the composition of the fly population among fruit flies in Voronezh and its environs during the war there was an increase in the percentage of flies with some chromosomal differences and a decrease in other fruit flies with other differences in chromosomes.

Look at this shit. Those are honest scientists who merely pursued their own theory, alright.


File: 1632278240424.png (4.59 MB, 1334x750, Senegal Permaculture.png)

Speaking of all this feel free to read the page I werked on: https://leftypedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Plan_for_the_Transformation_of_Nature
and add to leftypedia in general, a Permaculture page is needed >>>/edu/6950


Regardless of how vindicated or not you think he is, isn't it a bad idea to bet your agricultural produce on a largely untested and unproven method? Like, we all knew about ways that would work in the meantime. Even if his ideas had merit it makes more sense to first test and refine them.


>bet your agricultural produce on a largely untested and unproven method?
None of Lysenko's ideas got put into widespread use before, during or after the 1932-34 famine, and the Great Patriotic War interrupted further things until 1947.


Why was this shizo thread moved here? Are the jannies infracels?


>These socio-political problems of the 1930s. had a significant, albeit indirect, but significant influence on the course and results of the then discussions between the Michurinists and the Weismanists. The fact is that many Weismannists in the USSR of the 1930s. were either right-wing oppositionists to the Stalinist regime (Vavilov,.), or were suspected of adherence to Trotskyism (Levit, Agol,.), or supported eugenics (Möller, Koltsov, Serebrovsky). And vice versa, almost all Michurinists, led by Lysenko, had a negative attitude towards Trotskyism, and towards the "academic bias" in agriculture, and towards eugenics - the latter also because this pseudoscience was substantiated at that time with the help of Weismann's theories. Therefore, the victory of the Stalinist leadership of the USSR in the second half of the 1930s over Trotskyism, the elimination of sabotage in agriculture by the state security agencies, the campaign against eugenics also affected the results of the above-mentioned discussions - many of the Weismanists were repressed by the security forces in the course of the struggle against the Trotskyists and wreckers; others compromised themselves in the eyes of the public and the leadership of the country by supporting the pseudoscientific provisions of eugenics.

>The struggle against eugenics and its influence on the course of discussions. In the early 1920s - the first half of the 30s. ideas of eugenics were rapidly spreading in the USSR. They were supported by: the oldest Russian geneticist, founder of the Institute of Experimental Biology Koltsov; Head of the Department of Genetics, Moscow State University Serebrovsky; the future Nobel laureate Möller, who was then working at the Institute of Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Eugenic provisions were substantiated with the help of the Weismann theory of heredity. Eugenicists conducted research, published a journal, organized societies. They were even ready to move from theory to practice 119. In 1929, Serebrovsky suggested creating a sperm bank in the USSR from "the best producers" and impregnating Soviet women, "within the framework of a planned economy", only from there. In the same year, S. Davidenkov proposed to conduct a eugenic examination of the population of the USSR and to encourage the "most valuable in terms of eugenics" citizens to reproduce, and to voluntarily sterilize those who received the lowest "eugenic score" by issuing bonuses as compensation. G. Möller in May 1936, in a letter to Stalin, proposed a set of eugenic measures, calling them "a new and higher level of social ethics" and assuring that Russian women would only be happy to "mix their plasma with the plasma of Lenin and Darwin" or with genetic material from other "exceptional sources".

>In the mid 1930s. the wild eugenic projects of the Soviet Weismann geneticists finally caught the attention of the Stalinist leadership. Apparently, the "last straw" was Möller's letter to Stalin. Stalin realized that the program proposed by eugenicists would lead to the collapse of the state. After all, people, in any case, need something to eat. So, someone needs to produce useful products. If, however, the spread of "eugenically valuable" in the country is encouraged, then, of course, pop comedians, currency speculators, swindlers-privatizers of other people's property, plagiarists and charlatans in science will become more and more - but in the end, everyone will die of starvation - and " valuable" and all the rest. Therefore, even without much thought, Stalin came to the conclusion that the "valuable", contrary to their recommendations, should not be encouraged, but rather, strictly limit, as Nature herself has been doing for thousands of years. And first of all it is necessary to limit the theorists of "eugenization".

From July to December 1936, a number of publications were published in the national press with sharp criticism of eugenics, eugenics theorists, and eugenics-related issues. In late 1936, scientific conferences were held to criticize racism and eugenics. In the autumn of 1936, the director of the Medical Genetic Institute S. Levit was criticized in the central press, and in December he was expelled from the party for the formal reason of "connection with the enemy of the people" (Trotskyist N. Karev). However, ties with the Trotskyists only worsened the position of Levit, in January 1938 he was arrested and repressed. The Medical Genetic Institute was closed in the autumn of 1937.

>A. Serebrovsky, N. Koltsov, G. Möller and lower rank eugenicists (S. Davidenkov,…) were practically not punished for their pseudoscientific eugenic propaganda. Serebrovsky at the end of 1936 wrote another "repentant letter", denying his 1929 project; in this letter, addressed to the presidium of VASKhNIL, he called his proposals filled with "a whole chain of gross political and anti-scientific mistakes." Möller left the USSR altogether in 1937. Koltsov was verbally condemned for his eugenic theories in the spring of 1939 by the staff of the institute he headed and by the commission of the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences; dismissed from the post of director (at the same time); criticized in the press; failed in the elections to the Academy of Sciences of the USSR (at the same time), but was not subjected to any other repressions. Although he condemned his eugenic theories, unlike Serebrovsky,

>Campaign against eugenics in the second half of the 1930s had a definite influence on the course of discussions between the Michurinists and the Weismanists. In the course of it, the leaders of the Weismanists - Möller, Serebrovsky, Koltsov - personally compromised themselves as scientists in the eyes of the public and the country's leadership by supporting the pseudoscientific provisions of eugenics, and the doctrines of their school by using them to justify charlatan eugenic projects.



>At the beginning of the 19th century, J.-B. Lamarck (1744 - 1829) put forward a hypothesis about the cause of variability. He suggested that living organisms are able to pass on to their descendants some of the characteristics acquired by them during their lifetime. “If circumstances cause the condition of individuals to become normal and permanent for them, then the internal organization of such individuals eventually changes. The offspring obtained by crossing such individuals retain the acquired changes and, as a result, a breed is formed that is very different from one whose individuals were all the time in conditions favorable for their development" 18 .

>This idea is called the inheritance of acquired traits. Lamarck himself related his assumption more to changes in the body that were the results of its own actions: exercises and non-exercise of organs, changes in diet, etc. His followers, supporters of the idea of ​​inheritance of acquired traits, called the Lamarckists, focused on changes in the body that occurred under the influence of the external environment. They attributed the possibility of inheriting acquired traits only to adaptive (adaptive) and natural, caused by natural causes (and not, for example, injuries) changes in the body.

>The concept of inheritance of acquired traits was supported by many prominent naturalists and biologists of the 19th-20th centuries: C. Darwin, K.A. Timiryazev, I.V. Michurin, L. Burbank and others. For example, Darwin wrote: “In animals, increased work or non-use of some organs has a significant effect; for example, I noticed that in a domestic duck the wing bones weigh less, and the leg bones are larger in relation to the entire skeleton than the same bones in a wild ducks, and this difference can be attributed with certainty to the fact that the domestic duck flies much less and walks more than its wild ancestors … Significant heritable development of the udder in cows and goats in those countries where these animals are usually milked, compared with animals in other countries, is probably another example of the consequences of the active work of the body" 19. Darwin also proposed a certain mechanism for the influence of changes in the body on the genetic apparatus: somatic cells that changed under the influence of adaptive reactions secreted some "gemmules" or "pangens" that carry hereditary properties. Timiryazev also argued that "in relation to plants, Lamarck stood on a strictly scientific basis of facts, and the thoughts he expressed retained their full significance at the present time. He considered the source of changes in plants to be exclusively the influence of external conditions - the environment." Similarly, Michurin argued that “not only the properties and qualities inherent in producing plants are inherited to offspring, but also those changes in the structure of the plant organism forcibly produced by man, are also transmitted in many cases and, moreover, in rather sharp forms, which we so often use in gardening." Burbank said: "Inheritance of acquired characters exists, or I know nothing about plant life … A need in an animal or plant can cause a function, and this function can create or creates an organ that facilitates it performance. For me, after my work, the correctness of this theory is beyond doubt."

>A different position was taken by Weisman, Morgan and their followers. Weissman denied the possibility of the influence of the external environment on the genetic apparatus of the body, postulated by him "invariable germ plasm." He wrote: "I assume that germ cells can form in the body only where there is a germ plasm and that this germ plasm is directly and invariably descended from that which was in the parent germ cells." From this followed the impossibility of any influence of the body itself on the "genetic apparatus", and, therefore, the impossibility of inheriting the signs acquired by the body. To refute the concept of the inheritance of acquired traits, Weismann made famous experiments on cutting the tails of rats over several generations. Since "hereditary taillessness" did not appear in rats, he considered Lamarck's concept refuted. However, according to the Lamarckists, these experiences (as well as other examples of the non-heritability of traumatic changes) did not contradict their statements, which related only to adaptive (adaptive) and natural changes in the body.

>The statement about the complete impossibility of any influence of the body on the genetic apparatus was called the doctrine of the "Weismann barrier", and the supporters of this doctrine and other Weismann's ideas about heredity and variability began to be called "Weismannists". They themselves, however, somewhat arbitrarily, called themselves "neo-Darwinists." (Arbitrarily, because Darwin supported Lamarck's concept of the inheritance of acquired traits).

>These views of Weisman were shared by the creator of the chromosome theory of heredity T.G. Morgan and a number of other prominent geneticists of the time. For example, E. Conklin, in his work "Heredity and Environment", argued: "After the fertilization of the egg, the hereditary capabilities of each organism are fixed forever … The influence of the environment and education can only be reflected in the development of the individual, but not on the constitution of the race <heredity>". W. Castle in the article "Genetics", placed in the "American Encyclopedia" for 1945, wrote: "the principle of" continuity of the germinal substance "(substance of reproducing cells) is one of the basic principles of genetics. It shows why changes in the body caused by parents environmental influences are not inherited by offspring.This is because

>The concept of "unchanging germplasm"/"unchanging genes", however, did not fit well with the adaptive nature of variation. In the late 1920s, when the possibility of influencing the genetic apparatus of radiation was shown, it was refuted experimentally as well. After that, the Weismannists modified this concept: they began to admit the possibility of changing genes - either as a result of direct effects on chromosomes (such as radiation exposure), or spontaneously. However, these changes in genes, in their opinion, had a random, "undirected" nature, not unambiguously determined by external influences. The notion of the "randomness" of changes (mutations) in genes has become another important doctrine of Weismannism. "The most characteristic feature of mutations is their randomness".

>They still refused to allow the impact on the "hereditary basis" of any changes in the body (and thus the inheritance of acquired traits).



Well eventually the wind or a bird will drop a seed into the water paddies


the problem was bukharin getting purged and stalin going full retard with collectivization
lysenko was just a bottomfeeder


the destruction of the kulaks and their actual agricultural expertise meant people like lysenko could come along and peddle their woo


Thank you for sharing your opinion Professor Jordan Peterson





>agricultural expertise
ha! good one!


try Lysenko’s Ghost I've only heard of it but sounds what your looking for


Anyone that takes this guy seriously in the year 2023 Jesus-Death is a fucking dog that should be beaten with wooden clubs until they learn to pipe down


u r dum


lysenko good. others bad. simple as.


The Mendeloid screams in fear when confronted by Chadsenko



Lol, even Khruschev didn't like him

>On June 29, 1959, at the plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, Khrushchev, in connection with Dubinin's appointment as director of the Institute of Cytology and Genetics established in Novosibirsk, said: "The work of this scientist brought very little benefit to science and practice. If Dubinin is known for anything, it is for his articles and speeches against the theoretical provisions and practical recommendations of Academician Lysenko. I don't want to be a judge between the directions in the work of these two scientists. The judge, as you know, is practice, life. And practice speaks in defense of Michurin's biological school and Academician Lysenko, the successor of his work."


Gene skeptics claim that there is no coherence to the way gene is used at the molecular level and that this term does not designate a natural kind; rather, gene is allegedly used to pick out many different kinds of units in DNA. DNA consists of “coding” regions that are transcribed into RNA, different kinds of regulatory regions, and in higher organisms, a number of regions whose functions are less clear and perhaps in cases non-existent. Skepticism about genes is based in part on the idea that the term is sometimes applied to only parts of a coding region, sometimes to an entire coding region, sometimes to parts of a coding region and to regions that regulate that coding region, and sometimes to an entire coding region and regulatory regions affecting or potentially affecting the transcription of the coding region. Skeptics (e.g., Burian 1986, Portin 1993, and Kitcher 1992) have concluded, as Kitcher succinctly puts it: “a gene is whatever a competent biologist chooses to call a gene” (Kitcher 1992, p. 131).

Biological textbooks contain definitions of gene and it is instructive to consider one in order to show that the conceptual situation is indeed unsettling. The most prevalent contemporary definition is that a gene is the fundamental unit that codes for a polypeptide. One problem with this definition is that it excludes many segments that are typically referred to as genes. Some DNA segments code for functional RNA molecules that are never translated into polypeptides. Such RNA molecules include transfer RNA, ribosomal RNA, and RNA molecules that play regulatory and catalytic roles. Hence, this definition is too narrow.

Another problem with this common definition is that it is based on an overly simplistic account of DNA expression. According to this simple account, a gene is a sequence of nucleotides in DNA that is transcribed into a sequence of nucleotides making up a messenger RNA molecule that is in turn translated into sequence of amino acids that forms a polypeptide. (Biologists talk as if genes “produce the polypeptide molecules” or “provide the information for the polypeptide”.) The real situation of DNA expression, however, is often far more complex. For example, in plants and animals, many mRNA molecules are processed before they are translated into polypeptides. In these cases, portions of the RNA molecule, called introns, are snipped out and the remaining segments, called exons, are spliced together before the RNA molecule leaves the cellular nucleus. Sometimes biologists call the entire DNA region, that is the region that corresponds to both introns and exons, the gene. Other times, they call only the portions of the DNA segment corresponding to the exons the gene. (This means that some DNA segments that geneticists call genes are not continuous segments of DNA; they are collections of discontinuous exons. Geneticists call these split genes.) Further complications arise because the splicing of exons in some cases is executed differentially in different tissue types and at different developmental stages. (This means that there are overlapping genes.) The problem with the common definition that genes are DNA segments that “code for polypeptides” is that the notion of “coding for a polypeptide” is ambiguous when it comes to actual complications of DNA expression. Gene skeptics argue that it is hopelessly ambiguous (Burian 1986, Fogle 1990 and 2000, Kitcher 1992, and Portin 1993).

Clearly, this definition, which is the most common and prominent textbook definition, is too narrow to be applied to the range of segments that geneticists commonly call genes and too ambiguous to provide a single, precise partition of DNA into separate genes. Textbooks include many definitions of the gene. In fact, philosophers have often been frustrated by the tendency of biologists to define and use the term gene in a number of contradictory ways in one and the same textbook. After subjecting the alternative definitions to philosophical scrutiny, gene skeptics have concluded that the problem isn't simply a lack of analytical rigor. The problem is that there simply is no such thing as a gene at the molecular level. That is, there is no single, uniform, and unambiguous way to divide a DNA molecule into different genes. Gene skeptics have often argued that biologists should couch their science in terms of DNA segments such exon, intron, promotor region, and so on, and dispense with the term gene altogether (most forcefully argued by Fogle 2000).



Not really about Lysenko, but to demonstrate something about plants' genes https://www.quantamagazine.org/dna-of-giant-corpse-flower-parasite-surprises-biologists-20210421/ Literally siphons genes out of vines corpse flower attaches itself to. That's basically Lysenko's hybridization of various trees and plants.


libtard redditors always argue that Lysenko's methods caused famine in both USSR and China? Is there any truth to this?


Short answer is no. Long answer is also no, but with details such as critics of Lysenko being in charge of Ukraine's agriculture at the time, with them failing to implement new methods of agriculture (as in "not even trying to start an implementation") while everyone else reported higher agricultural yields and efficiency


Can you describe what does methods were?


As if I know (remember) the details, lol. Like, I know that under Lysenko, there were a lot of "tricks" being done to facilitate higher yields. For example, digging ponds and breeding fish there, or a lot of channels, or much joked about planting methods for bush-like plants, or creating wind-shielding green belts around the fields that prevented soil erosion, etc etc. Basically, it's modern agriculture? In regards to breeding, again, I'm not a specialist, but, say, there's this https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D1%8E%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81 which was bred by a Lysenko follower, using the Lysenko breeding methods for creating new sorts of grain (can't remember the exact method, but there was a thread about it assaulted by a smartass with monkey avatars on leftypol). So, this lutescens grain was sown in 50% of grain fields in USSR in 1970+, despite the claim that Lysenko's methods in breeding didn't work.


>unchanging entities (the genes)
Nobody actually thinks this, you moron. What do you think gene mutation is?


only sane poster ITT

there are some infracels here losing their minds over this shit


>Like, we all knew about ways that would work in the meantime. Even if his ideas had merit it makes more sense to first test and refine them.

Lysenko was testing his ideas for years, though. Before the plan for Great Transformation he had stations committed to trying out desert greening around Astrakhan. When it worked, the ideas were put to use - but then Khruschev came


>Despite the authors trying to make it seem like there is a lot of evidence for Lysenkos observations, they admit the lack of empirical evidence in the final paragraphs.

Nobody does the experiments that go against the dogma, therefore there's no empirical evidence. DUH.

Next, there's also the case of plants and animals having different genetic makeup and the way genes are transmitted, with plants having huge degrees of horizontal gene transfer. Even a simple act of planting a part of one plant into another and connecting them creates hybrids, with fruits from those having hybrid properties. Again, nobody did the experiments, but whenever they do it turns out true.

Wasn't it an american again who tried to hybridize plants along Lysenko's method, but omitting Lysenko entirely? It's kind of hilarious how the defence against the truthdom of Lysenko is that nobody tries to actually disprove him, instead opting for "no sane scientist believes him!"


According to Lysenko wheat would regularly turn into rye without human interference. Why can't this be observed on modern wheat fields? Is the MOG (Mendelian Occupied Government) suppressing the truth?


Only proletarian wheat can do that


File: 1678826452393-0.png (55.58 KB, 725x669, lysenko.png)

File: 1678826452393-1.png (151.85 KB, 1096x1126, lysenko2.png)

File: 1678826452393-2.png (104.32 KB, 1145x757, lysenko3.png)



File: 1678826484574-0.png (136.15 KB, 1122x1094, lysenko4.png)

File: 1678826484574-1.png (210.06 KB, 1066x1598, lysenko5.png)

File: 1678826484574-2.png (230.61 KB, 1086x1666, lysenko6.png)



>. A gene is a length of DNA that codes for a specific protein or RNA. They are distinct, actually existing units
They aren't "distinct". Thing is, those sections of DNA a) don't have to be near each other b) can overlap, meaning a section of DNA can be a part of more than one gene. And here we start to have a problem with genes as "distinct, actually existing units". DNA physically exist, nucleotides that it is composed from physically exist, proteins physicaly exist. Genes do not - they are an abstraction over actual physical reality that is actually harmful to understanding of how said reality works. Fankly in my opinion it's an outdated concept that we drag from XIX century out of habit and inability of current system to revise the biological concepts to match the actual data we have. Hell, we don't even have a definition for a gene that all biologists will agree with. It should be put down like an old yeller and new system of concepts and definitions should be built instead. But that's not gonna happen under capitalism, so we are stuck with it.

Maybe "highschool biology" is not enough to discuss said topics.


>Thing is, those sections of DNA a) don't have to be near each other
A gene being located diffusely on the DNA strand doesn't mean it's not distinct or doesn't exist. Things don't have to be physically connected to be distinct or exist. A file on your computer is analogous here - the physical 1s and 0s that make up a file are not necessarily consecutive on the storage devices but you can still say the file data is there.
>Thing is, those sections of DNA b) can overlap
Because of the above, this means that you can have a particular segment be used by multiple things. This is just a more efficient use of the space. Proteins are highly complex molecules and often have pieces that are constructed in the same way. You don't need to put the entire instruction set for assembling a protein in one continuous segment if you can jump around the DNA to find the instructions for the parts you need, and that means you can have parts that code for structures that are found in multiple different places. It's like if you are playing a video game on a disc, and to load up a level the game references the main master data that gives the overall structure but then jumps around the disc as that level data tells it what objects and enemies to populate the level with. You don't need to have the entire code for each individual goomba or red barrel that appears in the game if you can just reference the single instruction set for that from within another instruction set. That's how DNA works, and if it didn't life would be massively less efficient.

Genes are distinct, they just have a significantly more complex structure than is often implied by popular science. Genes can contain references to each other or to things that aren't genes, not very unlike what computer code can do.


Jesus, your analogies suck. If you don't understand how computers works, please, don't try to explain the biology through them. For example, no, storage devices don't use same segment for multiple files, that would be catastrophic. Which is why computer files are distinct. Genes aren't.

>Genes are distinct

Nucleotides are. Genes aren't. They are metaphysical concept and a pretty outdated one. Which happens when you try to use metaphysical approach to describe a process.

You basically ignored the most important parts of my argument about genes overlaping and lack of definition for them that most biologists would agree to and just threw up multiple BAD analogies to computers about the first point.


Are you using "highschool computer science" too?


>For example, no, storage devices don't use same segment for multiple files
Sure they do, like if I have a document that contains references to another file existing elsewhere. It works the same way as a particular protein referencing a particular DNA segment. I can have multiple documents that reference the same file elsewhere and if I change that file the wrong way it can break the reference.
>Nucleotides are. Genes aren't.
If genes weren't distinct protein synthesis would be impossible. The process of building a protein molecule needs to have a beginning and an end. If the set of instructions (genes) were not distinct the process wouldn't work.

>You basically ignored the most important parts of my argument about genes overlaping

No I addressed that. It's more efficient. When you compress a file you follow a similar principle of having a smaller number of reference points to cover more results you need to get.
>and lack of definition for them that most biologists would agree to
"Scientists can't agree on a definition" doesn't mean something doesn't exist. Do you gravity isn't real until there's a consensus scientific definition? Total non argument and you should be embarrassed to even say it once let alone to repeat it.

You are just mad because you're ideologically wed to a wrong position and resort to insults and pretending your arguments weren't addressed because you have nothing else.


>Sure they do, like if I have a document that contains references to another file existing elsewhere.
The more i talk to you the more i have the idea that you just don't know what you are talking about. No, "ones and zeros" are not shared between files. That would be architectural nighmare.
>If genes weren't distinct protein synthesis would be impossible.
Not if you stop thinking in metapysical framework.
>"Scientists can't agree on a definition" doesn't mean something doesn't exist.
It does mean that the specific defition is problematic. Biologist don't have same problems with DNA or protein for example.
>Do you gravity isn't real until there's a consensus scientific definition?
Except there is. Please don't throw random argument and hope they just stick.
>It's more efficient. When you compress a file you follow a similar principle of having a smaller number of reference points to cover more results you need to get.
Learn how compression works. Information is compressed within one file. This file doesn't "reference" (what the fuck does that even mean? a link?) other files by sharing "ones and zeros". In fact it would be a separate file from the original. And "information" within that file would be compressed, which is why information is not a physical distinct thing, but file is.
> ideologically wed to a wrong position

Unique IPs: 31

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru / zine ]