/edu/ - Education

Stupid, but not that much of a problem for agriculture as people make him out to be.

Bear in mind that genetics was a very new field at the time and that people didn’t even understand the mechanisms of inheritance well until even the 1920s, and even then the idea of genes passing on material vis-a-vis proteins was still just a hypothesis.

is this thread gonna happen every month or what

jesus

This is the worst recurring thread

>>7301
This is literally unironically true, he was right about this.

>>7302
Why do you want to believe this?

>>7303
Because it is scientific truth.

>>7304
It's not.

>>7295
>i'm curious to learn about him,
Duckduckgo.com

>>7305
It Is.

>>7305
>>7308
I will form my opinion based on whoever posts last.

for anyone interested

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_error

>>7309
I am usually never wrong.
>Sickle cell disease occurs when a person inherits two abnormal copies of the β-globin gene (HBB) that makes haemoglobin, one from each parent.
Genes exist, but genetics is much more than genes and if you apply Marxist dialectics, it becomes immediately obvious that genes are only one part of the puzzle and are a "quantum" of understanding of genetics.

Hazbots saying genes don't exist is like schizos saying intestines don't exist because there's actually different parts to it and can be divided in small and large, and they do different things. Oh did you not know LIVERS exist??? Got you, liberal! They are part of digestion! Lyversenko was right!

There's a lot of information we do know, and lots we don't. We're still discovering shit. Apply marxist dialectics to genetics research. We're leagues ahead of Lysenko. We have much better tech. Ffs just read about the crispr/crisp-cas9 stuff. It is a proper scientific breakthrough, like a big historic one. It won't necessarily be industrially useful, but it is a significant breakthrough that is only possible because of our massive advancement in genetics research since Lysenko.

Tldr: Lysenko is less right than modern genetics and Marxist dialectical materialism basically proves it.

>>7309
Sucking dicks is good for you

>>7311
>it becomes immediately obvious that genes are only one part of the puzzle
>and are a "quantum" of understanding of genetics.

Oh, so wrong. Yeah I agree.

>>7311
>saying genes don't exist is like schizos saying
Its supposed to make mad so you stop and think about your preconceived categories and rigid boxes that obviously don't line up with reality.


In Mendelian genetics, one single gene (genotype) determines one single trait or phenotype.

Now we know traits/phenotypes are determined by multiple "genes", non-coding DNA, regulators influenced by internal and outside conditions. The Mendelian view of genetics can only be applied in rare cases for genetic counseling.

He didn't "deny" the existence of genetics at all. He acknowledged the existence of chromosomes and assumed they had a function, however, he did not seem to consider it important to find out what that function exactly was.

He mainly critiqued structuralist western science, which sees processes as the epiphenomena of structures.
It viewed "genes" as metaphysical entities that solely determine the phenotype of organisms. And that these "genes" allowed only to change of the surface phenomena (phenotype) by reassortment of unchanging entities (the genes). This makes only a one-way relationship between organism and environment possible. And gives difficulty to explain how cells with identical genomes can give rise to differentiated cells that make up the different tissues. Also, the fact that "genes determine phenotype" is simply an evasion of what really happens in development (the interaction with the environment).

Then he argued that this implied: Heredity implies an organ of heredity, memory implies an organ of memory, or engram, language implies an archetypal capacity for language. Which is indeed quite an idealist view of genetics.


At the time it was being tested, the media that was telling people about the new discoveries of genetics were also happily telling people that smoking was good for your health, "tetraethyl" gasoline was great for you, and almost unabashedly open to corruption and bribes. There was very little way for anyone to make any kind of verification of the claim now coming out about "genes" and "DNA" that determined how a person would grow and act, it was a narrative that easily fell into play about racial prejudices, and ultimately they were worried that it was a fake story being used to justify capitalism (My father owned this factory because he had excellent genetics, he passed those genes on to me and so now I own the factory because I can do better than any of you commoner rabble, with your inferior genetics). The eugenics movement was picking up serious steam by the 1920's across the developed capitalist nations, all while running on sketchy, uncertain, unverifiable science.

Given the social, political, and scientific climate of the time, I think it was justified to accept some radically different views and try putting them into practice. I really don't think it was scientifically valid to ban dissent from the radically new view, especially banning any kind of contradicting experiments, but such is life in perpetual siege mode.

In contrast, Lysenko emphasized the process as prior to structure and saw structure as the transitory appearance of process. To him, it was absurd to look for the organ of heredity since heredity is a dynamic process in which various structures are involved.
Even nowadays in genetics, the "gene" is still seen as a metaphysical entity, when do we call something a "gene"? The DNA sequence itself is in continuous interaction with its internal and external environment and is a dysfunctional sequence of nucleotides if one of its interaction partners is missing.

He also critiqued as 'anti-materialist' the fact that western scientists continuously appealed to "chance" to explain mutations; because "they appeared to postulate effects without causes" and "if there is a material connection between a mutagenic agent and the mutation it causes, then in principle individual mutations must be predictable, the geneticists claim of unpredictability is simply an expression of their ignorance."

>>7313
Lysenko didn't just ramble vage shit about genetics being a process. He made concrete claims about how evolution works, which are easily proven false.
He was a fraud, get over it.

>>7313
That sounds very based. I've heard conflicting reports about Lysenko.

Good answer.

>He mainly critiqued structuralist western science, which sees processes as the epiphenomena of structures.
This is great. I think it really exemplifies that aspect of Marxist dialectics. A liberal might say that systems only work depending on the human elements. Eg, mexico sucks because people are culturally corrupt. A smarter liberal might say that the system produced the results, eg. "There is no such thing as a human error." If your system is fucked, it's due to the system itself. Maybe they'll say that racism is systemic. Maybe they'll advocate for making tweaks to the system.

In contrast, a Marxist view would look at the system (which is really a snapshot of the state of affairs) and the process as being related one to the other. The Marxist view would see that the process creates the system. The system is a moment in the process in motion. So when analyzing, say Mexico, the process creates the system that is corruption. Then, when analyzing the process of governance in Mexico, it is necessarily tied to foreign relations including drug trade, and also real internal conflict between elements of society. So, in a way, it forces you to reckon with the real forces that affect whatever you're analyzing.

In genetics, as you said, the process is real life for the organism, while the system is merely a snapshot in the lifecycle of the organism.

Anyways, big rambling, but you know it's a good post when it caused someone to think and ramble ;)

>>7315
He claimed that one species would turn into another based on the environment. This change would supposedly take place within a few generations.
You won't be able to provide any examples of this taking place in the real world. Will you admit that he was a fraud or will you cope and seethe?

>>7317
Lysenko's point about the lack of natural border lines between species was a known issue with Darwin's theory - one Darwin was well aware of. If man descended from ape, why aren't there many transitional forms currently alive today, and why can't the same be said of other species? Darwin's answer was Malthusian population laws, but Lysenko - and he's not the only one - isn't satisfied with that answer. It was a question in biology how you made Darwin's theory actually functional after more and more weaknesses in the theory arose, and this was going on in the west as well. People weren't declaring Darwin's work to be holy dogma and the correct truth, and Darwin himself noted problems that would cast doubt on his theory in Origin of Species. That's why you have the neo-Darwinian synthesis, and later on so-called "molecular biology" (another Rockefeller initiative). The neo-Darwinian synthesis was after Lysenko's prime and it had immediate critics too, and there are still questions about this very question of where the transitional forms are, which get answered by theories like punctuated equilibrium. What Lysenko is writing there isn't "far out and weird" in his time, and wouldn't be far out and weird to anyone who understood the question. It's only a problem to those who take a dogmatic view about biology.

>Darwin's theory of evolution proceeds from the recognition of quantitative changes only, thus there should be no natural border lines, no discontinuity between species in nature. Lysenko did not hesitate to oppose Darwin directly: “No continuous, unbroken series of forms between species – different qualitatively definite states of living matter – have been found. This is so not because the intermediate forms in a continuous range have died out as a result of mutual competition, but because there is no such continuity in nature, nor can there be. A species is a distinct, qualitatively definite state of living matter. We must realize that spe-ciation is a transition – in the course of the historical process – from quantitative to qualitative variations. Such a leap is prepared by the vital activity of organic forms themselves, as the result of quantitative accumulation of response to the action of definite conditions of life, and that is something that can definitely be studied and directed. The conversion of one species into another takes place by a leap”.

>Lysenko's assumption is based on the fact that if 28-chromosome durum wheat is sown late in the autumn, after two generations some of the plants are converted into 42-chromosome soft wheat. The facts Lysenko described might be true, and can be well explained by horizontal gene transfer, though his idea of sudden jumps in evolution was supported only by a few scientists. Horizontal gene transfer is the transfer of genes across species including those in different kingdoms. It goes counter to both modern genetics and the theory of evolution. The passage of DNA from plants to soil bacteria has been proposed as a force in evolution. Soil bacteria could thus provide a genetic link between distant plant species. High rates of gene transfer are known to be associated with the plant root system, the rhizosphere, where conjuga-tive are most likely. There, Agrobacterium could multiply and transfer transgenetic DNA to other bacteria, and to the next crop.

>Inspired by Malthus, Darwin explained the gap between species by using intraspecific competition. Based on a practical farming method of raising kok-saghyz plants, Lysenko argued that there exists no intraspecific competition but mutual assistance among individuals within a species, and there does exist interspecific competition and also mutual assistance between different species. Lysenko had done a service to biology by pointing out how rarely intraspecific competition happens, though he had stated his case too strongly. Haldane expressed partial sympathy with Lysenko over the significance of intraspecific competition. Like Lysenko, Haldane also rejected the Malthusian element in this Darwinian schema. That is, he rejected the notion that overpopulation, leading to conflict within species, was the rule in nature. He did not deny its existence, but thought its extent generally exaggerated.

>Obviously, Lysenko's claim of nonex-istence of intraspecific competition in nature is too one-sided, as Haldane correctly pointed out. However, the facts he described might be true. If there is less competition in the invasive range and competitive ability involves traits that have a fitness cost, then selection might act against it, thereby reducing intra-specific competition too. Nevertheless, competition between relatives can reduce, and even totally negate, the kin-selected benefits of altruism toward relatives. Mutualism may play a more important role in the evolution of specialized cooperative societies than has previously been supposed, thus supporting Lysenko's claim of mutual assistance within and between species.

>>7317
also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

See my massive effort post(s) (that got lost during the migration): Post 19342 https://archive.ph/GGXrB

>>7318
>text wall spam
>no citations or actual sources
LOL

>>7321
first paragraph is from here
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lysenko/works/1950s/new.htm
last three from here
http://imichurin.narod.ru/liu2004.htm
they were linked here >>7300, and discussed in those archived threads


you can open a book any time

>>7318
Issues with this: We have found transitional fossils and evidence of transitional species. Phylogenetic gradualism might not be qute as strongly supported as it once was, as there are certainly relatively longer periods of stasis than development, but it's quite a far cry from most evolution happening within a span of a few generations in all but the most extreme circumstances that often don't last very long due to small size of the new species or other exogenous circumstances

>>7323
Transitional species are marginal and Punctuated Equilibrium has more data to support it and is widely accepted and taught as the primary mechanism. So now we've gone from Lysenko is "vague" to a "fraud" to "mostly correct except if I argue semantics and bring up exceptions that prove the rule" or "overemphasize the specific number of generations claimed to distract from the point".


Are you trying to deny that the environment has any effect on evolution? This is accepted scientific fact these days and was part of Darwin's original explanation that was later pushed out by bourgeois eugenicists.

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/45/6/2206/2617243

>I would like to say that inheritance of acquired characters was also the driving force of Darwin’s theory of evolution. It is a historical fact that, in genetics, Darwin was a Lamarckist. He accepted the inheritance of acquired characters as subsidiary aids in the development of species, and as a possible source of new variation upon which natural selection acted. One clear example may be cited from the sixth edition of The Origin of Species:

<This has been effected chiefly through the natural selection of numerous successive, slight, favourable variations; aided in an important manner by the inherited effects of the use and disuse of parts; and in an unimportant manner, that is in relation to adaptive structures, whether past or present, by the direct action of external conditions, and by variations which seem to us in our ignorance to arise spontaneously.

>>7324
>>7318
Looks like you have chosen to cope and seethe.
Punctuated Equilibrium doesn't conflict with our understanding of evolution, but Lysenkos bullshit does. The excerpts you yourself posted proves that.
>Lysenko's assumption is based on the fact that if 28-chromosome durum wheat is sown late in the autumn, after two generations some of the plants are converted into 42-chromosome soft wheat. The facts Lysenko described might be true, and can be well explained by horizontal gene transfer, though his idea of sudden jumps in evolution was supported only by a few scientists. Horizontal gene transfer is the transfer of genes across species including those in different kingdoms. It goes counter to both modern genetics and the theory of evolution. The passage of DNA from plants to soil bacteria has been proposed as a force in evolution. Soil bacteria could thus provide a genetic link between distant plant species. High rates of gene transfer are known to be associated with the plant root system, the rhizosphere, where conjuga-tive are most likely. There, Agrobacterium could multiply and transfer transgenetic DNA to other bacteria, and to the next crop.
You won't be able to provide any evidence of this experiment having been replicated outside of the Soviet Union. It is obviously a fabrication and the explanation given is also bunk. Go ahead! Try to prove that 28-chromosome durum wheat can actually turn into 42-chromosome soft wheat. Your fellow retards in the last thread and the thread before that have all failed to do so. Please make me laugh.
>overemphasize the specific number of generations claimed to distract from the point
Lysenko claimed that on species would turn into a completely different one with a two digit difference in chromosomes within a few generations. If you admit that this isn't the case, you are admitting that Lysenko was wrong about there being clear borders between species.

why is there a lysenko post every month here?

>>7328
What's the tl;dr? Some things very good. Other things borderline prophetic. Other things retarded?

>>7329
He was one of the first scientists to publish about vernalisation. This was undoubtedly a significant progress for Soviet agronomy. However he went full schizo and drew some unreasonable conclusions form his findings, which led him to deny natural selection.

>>7325
>If you admit that this isn't the case
These claims aren't related. It sounds like you have autism or don't understand biology and want to have a dictionary fight.

>>7332
I am certain that I understand biology better than you guys, since I don't believe that 28-chromosome durum wheat can turn into 42-chromosome soft wheat.

>>7333
but then how can a flat worm "turn" into a mammal?

>>7334
Certainly not by suckling on each other until they grow tits

>>7325
>You won't be able to provide any evidence of this experiment having been replicated outside of the Soviet Union

Has anyone tried?

>>7336
Fact of the matter is that any kind of expiriments in Science; especially more recent ones are more or less never replicated. Nobody does it cause it earns you nothing and even if you do, the publishers will use it as a toilet paper. There's like a statistic saying something like 80% of published expiriments cannot be replicated. Saying all of this as an insider; honestly seeing how Capitalism fucked Science hard like this is one of the reasons why I was pushed leftwards

>>7322
>you can open a book
<just read a whole book lol that's totally an argument
<I'm totally not cherry picking excerpts to fit a narrative
Okay

>>7338
>>7322
Also IMO I wrote this Lysenko effortpost >>7320, I'm not arguing against you, just playing Devil's Advocate and pointing out that you should probably list the sources likes you did now in the first place. It'll help in improving your arguments.

>>7339
>IMO
I meant to write "FYI", I'm tired.

>>7333
Do you think this means something? Why don't you explain how you think this refutes anything I said. Was Newton wrong about gravity? Einstein wrong about relativity?

>>7313
IOW, Lysenko wasn’t wrong but not quite correct either?

>>7334
Flat worms don't just turn into mammals. That's the point. It takes millions of years for such a change to happen. The whole process is driven by random mutations and natural selection.
>>7336
Weak cope. The burden of proof is on you.
>>7341
>Why don't you explain how you think this refutes anything I said
You contradict yourself a lot, so there isn't much for me to refute. My point is that Lysenko was wrong and a fraud.
>Was Newton wrong about gravity? Einstein wrong about relativity?
Their experiments were actually real and they advanced our understanding of physics. Lysenko held soviet biology back, which is a shame since his discovery of vernalisation was legit. He could have been a great scientist.

>>7343
He was wrong. A fraud? Not so much.

Bear in mind that we didn’t know as much about genetics then as we do now.

>>7343
> random mutations
please explain how this works

>>7300
>>7295
He's got that movie villain look lol

>>7343
>experiment[s] were real
>vernalisation was legit
How does one mistake make him a fraud? Do you have any other examples? What about mentor grafting and michurianism? What about epigenetics? Inheritance of acquired characteristics was proven to be true so his over all project was correct even if he didn't have the tools to prove the mechanisms once and for all at that time.

Your basically a quarter step from becoming a social darwinist because you think we don't already know what your teachers told you to believe and want to teach us. People don't just start out supporting Lysenko without studying biology first and finding flaws with the dogma.

This argument is precisely the same as the nature vs nurture argument and you are arguing on the side of nature; that behavior is genetically determined and environment plays no role. You seem to be getting triggered at people presenting arguments that the environment has an effect, as if you think they are presenting it as the only driver, and overlooking that there is a dialectical relationship between the two, which has been Lysenko's claim all along.

>>7345
Radiation
Genetic malformations
Illness
Other toxic pollutants

>>7349
Yeah basically

>>7345
>>7348
>>7349
>>7350
There's also just a lot of imperfect copying that happens. One of the major benefits of reproducing sexually is that you combine genes from more than one parent organism and shuffle them around more, which results in more genetic diversity.

>>7351
Yeah random mutation isn't a bug, it's a feature.

>>7352
well, stuff like >>7349 is a bug lol
wanted to make a distinction

>>7341
>Einstein wrong about relativity?
Yes. Einstein was a retard

>>7343
>The whole process is driven by random mutations and natural selection
prove it

>>7343
yes but in a lab you can speed up those millions of years quick

>>7354
no why? but you don't need millions of years to turn a wolf into a chiuaua or corgi; or to create a racing dog/horse;

>>7344
Why did he have to purge other scientists that questioned him, if his research was legit?
>Bear in mind that we didn’t know as much about genetics then as we do now.
Scientists back then didn't need to know everything we know today in order to prove that his theories were wrong.
>>7347
>How does one mistake make him a fraud?
How could the wheat debacle be a fucking mistake? Did he just keep sowing soft wheat by mistake?
>Do you have any other examples?
Weird claims about farm animal hybrids he created by having one female mate with several males of a different species, plants being planted in clusters, so some of them would sacrifice themselves as fertilizer for their brethren and my personal favourite the Cuckoo debacle. According to Lysenko, his observation that a cuckoo hatched from an egg of a warbler, was further proof for his theory of evolution. The problem with this one should be obvious.
>mentor grafting
Graft hybrids were already described by Darwin, so you can't credit Lysenko for discovering them.
>michurianism
Never heard of it. Please educate me.
>epigenetics
I'd argue that epigenetics is more of a rehabilitation of Lamarck. In prior threads your side always got butthurt, when somebody described Lysenko as a Lamarckian. Also the processes of epigenetics in no way resemble the changes Lysenko claimed to observe.
>You seem to be getting triggered at people presenting arguments that the environment has an effect, as if you think they are presenting it as the only driver, and overlooking that there is a dialectical relationship between the two, which has been Lysenko's claim all along.
Again these ideas were already proposed by Darwin. Lysenko wasn't some sort of genius for agreeing with this concept. It was even accepted by many researchers in the west. My goal is to show how the theories that Lysenko HIMSELF came up with are wrong and that he was a fraud.
>>7356
There are 'errors' in evolution that can be explained by its random nature. A good example for this is the laryngeal nerve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOiHLcs_L3Q
If organisms can just change their body plans the way Lysenko described it, how come the giraffe isn't able to just evolve a more efficient laryngeal nerve? Furthermore the dominance of sexual reproduction is a strong indicator for natural selection. Sexual reproduction ensures that beneficial genes can be spread throughout the entire population. Multicellular animals that have evolved ways of reproducing asexually still have males and females for this very reason. Even single celled life has evolved a form of sex, where two cells exchange part of their genetic material.
>>7357
What sort of point are you trying to make?
>>7358
Dogs and horses are the product of breeding. They underwent an artificial selection process, which indeed results in the organism evolving into a new one in a very fast manner, but also results in the end product being an inbreed mess with countless diseases. Breeding and natural selection shouldn't be conflated.

>>7359
>I'd argue that epigenetics is more of a rehabilitation of Lamarck.
Please try.
> My goal
Doing a poor job m80

>>7360
It somewhat vindicates Lamarcks idea of how evolution works, although his overall theory still remains false. In what way do you think is it more similar to Lysenkos theory of evolution?
>Doing a poor job m80
Every single one of you either ignored or tried to deflect the wheat question. I do not consider myself a very smart person, but at least I am not a retarded Amerikkkan like you

>>7295
Lysenko was retarded and his opposition to genetics weakened soviet sciences and just put them under the control of whatever the party thought sciences should be based off 19th century texts.

>>7359
>How could the wheat debacle be a fucking mistake? Did he just keep sowing soft wheat by mistake?
>>7359
>According to Lysenko, his observation that a cuckoo hatched from an egg of a warbler, was further proof for his theory of evolution.

gonna need some documents m80

>>7363
Sorry for the late reply.
28-chromosome durum wheat turning into 42-chromosome soft wheat:
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lysenko/works/1950s/new.htm
>in 1948 V. I. Karapetian observed in his experiments that if 28-chromosome durum wheat (Triticum durum) is sown late in the autumn some of the plants are converted rather quickly, in two or three generations, into another species, into 42-chromosome soft wheat (T. vulgare).On the basis of the genetic qualitative heterogeneity of the plant organism's body, a heterorgeneity previously established by Michurinist biology, it was decided to search for grains of soft, 42-chromosome wheat in the spikes of experimentally grown durum wheat. As a result, individual grains of soft wheat were quite easily observed in the spikes of durum wheat i.e., grains of one botanical species were found in the spikes of another species.When grains of this soft wheat (Triticum vulgare) taken from spikes of durum wheat (T durum) were sown, they produced, as a rule, soft-wheat plants. In many districts a careful search will reveal each year the presence of soft-wheat grains in some of the durum-wheat spikes arise in ordinary farm fields.
I am surprised you needed to ask for a source. Haven't you read Lysenkos basic texts before deciding to staunchly defend him?

The primary source for the warbler-cuckoo claim is the 1953 edition of a soviet journal called 'O vidoobrazovanii'. I couldn't find anything online, so I must rely on secondary sources like 'The Lysenko Affair' by David Joravsky. Personally I assume that it is true. Considering all the other insane shit Lysenko believed in, thinking that a cuckoo hatched from a warbler-egg isn't much of a leap. However I'll do something unprecedented for this thread and admit that I can't 100% prove it.

>>7302
It's more that heredity doesn't work in the crude way kids are taught dogmatically in school, and basically no complex trait is reducible to Mendel's imaginary genes. The "gene as information" is the go-to mystification, because information gathering is essential to the eugenic mission, and that's why you hear endlessly how genes are "expressed", "code", and so on - computerization analogies rather than descriptions of what actually happens in the body. What they do with DNA is find correlations and sorta guess that they hit upon something, but "genetic engineering" is limited to really basic chemical interactions, and even there geneticists are just hoping they found something in basically random sequences of DNA. It's like cut-and-pasting code into a really really big file and calling yourself a software engineer. There's no understanding of what the hell DNA is doing to reproduce the entire person, and DNA doesn't even answer the crucial developmental phases where you go from fertilized egg to newborn.

One of the enduring traits of life is that it is unique stubborn and insists on resisting change in the world, and anything to change its form. Life is unique in possessing this reactionary stance towards the procession of events in reality.

>>7330
It should be noted that at this time, Darwinian natural selection was increasingly doubted, from the peak just after Darwin published Origin of Species. Nor was Darwin asserting the dogmatic version of natural selection that is taught today as pure ideology, but something quite different.

The truth though is that Lysenko didn't doubt natural selection in Darwin's theory as a factor. Where Lysenko disagreed was with the specifically Malthusian ideological injection that was underway in bourgeois science, in which everything BUT natural selection was dismissed, and natural selection was proposed as a totalizing theory of everything. That treatment of natural selection was totally unscientific. So, the charge that Lysenko was a "Lamarckian" is a false one. Funny thing though is that what Lamarck said way back when was taken to mean something that it didn't, again because of the dogmatic Malthusians. Lamarck accepted heredity, but was questioning why over LONG time spans disuse of organs would change species. The asinine "let's chop off tails of rats" experiment is missing basic truths of what was known of biological life to make facile claims, and this is actually what dogmatic Malthusians believe to be good science. These are the same sort of people who did Galton's stupid experiment, which was so over-the-top retarded that Charles Darwin had to tell his nephew to stop being a fucking idiot.

>>7366
actually you are just schizo and lack self awareness

>>7369
First of all the toad paper doesn’t argue that the midwife toads turned into a different species. It clearly states that Kammerers experiments can be explained by already present genes that are usually silenced. This would mean that Kammerers midwife toads had pretty much the same genes as the regular ones. Keep in mind that Lysenko claimed his changed wheat would have an entirely different set of chromosomes.
>The preliminary model presented here is based on the possibilities brought up by recent experiments with the Avy allele in mice (Cropley et al., 2006). As mentioned above, environmentally induced methylation of the Avy allele occurred only if Avy was inherited from the F0 father. When the Avy allele was inherited from the mother, the special methyl-donor-rich diet of the F0 pregnant mother had no effect on the phenotypes of the exposed F1 progeny. Thus, environmentally induced methylation of the Avy allele requires previous exposure of that allele to the cell environment of the male germ-line. A similar phenomenon may have occurred in Kammerer’s experiment. Let us consider that in Kammerer’s experiment, a dominant allele ‘‘A’’ determines a land phenotype. ‘‘A’’ becomes environmentally silenced in early embryos exposed to water, only if these embryos have inherited the ‘‘A’’ allele from the mother. In other words, ‘‘A’’ can be silenced by exposure to water only if it has previously passed through the female germ-line (Fig. 3A). Let us also assume that Kammerer collected individuals carrying a rare, recessive ‘‘a’’ allele (this could explain the specimen with nuptial pads found in natural conditions as a rare occurrence of a double recessive). The ‘‘a’’ allele would be functionally equivalent to a silenced, nonfunctional Ax allele, with no functional alleles determining a ‘‘water’’ phenotype.
>Based on the discovery of the naturally occurring specimen with nuptial pads, Stephen Jay Gould argued that the genes necessary for their development must still be present in the midwife toad (Gould, ’72).
As for the rest I'll need some better proof than research papers that were mostly written during a time where attacking Lysenko could ruin your career (unlike what a certain e-celeb wants you to think his influence continued well into the Khrushchev-era). I couldn't find pdfs for the few more modern ones, so I can't comment on them.
Later the authors also admit that there is no evidence for the Lysenkoist position:
>It is an essential part of Lysenko’s conception that the new adaptive capacity resulting from shaken heredity can become fixed only by the action of the appropriate external conditions, acting if necessary over several generations. It should be noted that Rajki (1967) believed that it is possible for an environmental factor to exert an influence, which occasionally causes a change in the DNA sequence and fixes the changes genetically. Unfortunately, this is not supported
by any molecular data.
They then go on to theorise about a potential epigenetic explanation for Lysenkos observations. By their on admission the current evidence for their hypothesis is lacking and further experiments would be needed.
>In recent years, genetic studies comparing winter and spring wheat have identifi ed three genes (VRN1, VRN2 and VRN3) in the vernalization response. The VRN1 gene is a meristern identity gene and is dominant for spring growth habit. Reduction of VRN1 transcript levels by RNA interference results in a delay in fl owering of 2–3 weeks, suggesting that the transcript level of VRN1 is critical for the determination of fl owering time in wheat. The VRN2 gene is a zinc fi nger CCT transcription factor and is dominant for winter growth habit. This gene is downregulated by vernalization, releasing the transcription of the VRN1 genes and promoting fl owering. Mutations in the CCT domain or deletions of the VRN2 gene are associated with a spring growth habit (Yan et al. 2004; Dubcovsky et al. 2007). Current models of flowering regulation in wheat suggest that, before vernalization, VRN3 is repressed by VRN2. Vernalization results in the upregulation of VRN1 and the downregulation of VRN2 in the leaves. The release from VRN2 repression results in higher transcript levels of VRN3 and the promotion of VRN1 above the threshold levels required for fl ower induction (Distelfeld et al. 2009). There has been increasing evidence that vernalization results in DNA demethylation that induces flowering. Winter wheat is more highly methylated than spring wheat (Sherman and Talbert 2002). It has been widely accepted that vernalization-induced fl owering is an epigenetic phenomenon (Minorsky 2002; Amasino 2004; Bastow et al. 2004). Epigenetic effects are often heritable, in the sense that they are passed on from one cell generation to the next. Epigenetic variations can also be transmitted from parents to progeny (Jablonka and Raz 2009). It is not unreasonable to postulate epigenetic mechanisms that could plausibly result in the conversion of spring to winter wheat or vice versa, although this would require new and carefully controlled experiments using the currently available molecular tools that were not available at the time these experiments were done. It would be extremely interesting if someone did try to repeat the conversion experiments and hypothesize how epigenetic modification of some of these VRN genes could possibly explain the observed conversion.
In the end this article is a weak defence of Lysenko, which omits his actual positions in order to make him seem less insane to the uninitiated reader. 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. It also strikes me as silly how they don’t question the absence of similar studies outside of the Soviet sphere. According to Lysenko the apperance of grains of one species among those of another was a common occurrence. How come none of this has ever been reported in the West? Do the mendelian gangstalkers descend upon the wheat fields at night and steal the revolutionary antieugenicist rye grains?

I have no idea how you people arrived at the conclusion that Lysenko was right. Seriously please tell me what convinced you to defend this retard.

>>7366
A post from Eugene that’s not schizo? You know, sometimes you’re alright.

.

>>7371
What a massive cope. I can't believe you are arguing in good faith anymore. Lysenkoism was over in 1952 and your replying to a study that has sources from the 60s 70s up until 1985 published all over the world including outside the USSR. Like I already said upthread you are missing the point and over focusing on specific claims that weren't even made by Lysenko as some kind of gotcha instead of trying to understand what he was doing with the limited technology available at his time.

I honestly don't even know why you are arguing. You have made it clear you weren't trained in biology so it comes off like some kind of emotional drive to protect the honor of academia.

>>7374
its probably an anarkiddie that thinks lysenko = stalin = starving and gulag

>>7374
>Lysenkoism was over in 1952
Lol no. Lysenko remained the director for the Institute of Genetics throughout the Khrushchev era. It is a myth that Lysenko was instantly purged and his views banned after the Death of Stalin. Liberals push this meme to equate Stalin with Lysenko (Stalin didn't even seem to take him serious most of the time) and terminally online MLs eat it up.
>sources from the 60s 70s up until 1985 published all over the world
As I said in my prior post. All over the Soviet sphere of influence. Doesn't it concern you at all that there are no similar studies from other parts of the world? I would still like to read what the more modern ones and those from China might have to say, but I had no luck finding them.
>you are missing the point and over focusing on specific claims that weren't even made by Lysenko
Which claims of mine contradict Lysenkos positions? The opposite seems to be the case. Your side keeps arguing that Lysenko is vindicated by epigenetics, but fails to provide any examples from his writings that resemble the modern theory of epigenetics. In addition you all keep contradicting each other. According to this thread Lysenko was right, because genes aren't real, but epigenetics, which relies on genes being real, also proves Lysenko right. Potential evidence of Lamarckian evolution is also evidence for Lysenkos theory of evolution, but at the same time Lysenko wasn't a Lamarckian.
The closest examples to a coherent argument you have put forward are >>7318 and >>7369. Both pivot away from Lysenkos assumption, that the wheat he was studying actually transformed into another species and instead try to argue that he made a (somewhat) correct observation and drew the wrong conclusions. If this were the case, my claim that Lysenko faked the his experiments results would be refuted. The only problem is, neither of the sources you provided can prove this. Both are left to speculate about some to this day undiscovered phenomenon that caused the observations Lysenko made.
>muh limited technology
Why didn't researchers outside of the soviet sphere repeat the same mistakes he did?
>I honestly don't even know why you are arguing
I care about my fellow comrades being able to think critically about the mistakes of past socialist societies.

tldr: 404 no arguments found

>>7376
> According to this thread Lysenko was right, because genes aren't real, but epigenetics, which relies on genes being real, also proves Lysenko right.
You seem really hung up on this and not to be understanding what is meant by "genes aren't real". Its obviously meant to be inflammatory but the point is that genes are a socially constructed category that consists of a dialectical relationship between the organism and its environment, not a singular physical object, which is a true statement.

Lysenkos primary claim has always been that inheritance of acquired characteristics plays some role in evolution. The only claim he is trying to refute is biological determinism. Epigenetics proves biological determinism false, so Lysenko was right. If you can't understand why this makes a difference to communists, and why the burden is on you to prove eugenics for you to be right then we aren't having the same conversation. Any amount of environmental effect at all proves Lysenko right.

The way genetics and biology in general is taught and practiced is ideological and focused on mechanical reproducibility of cloned individuals. This obviously has benefit for industrialized agriculture but its conflates the difference between species and individual and lends to a social darwinist approach of survival of the fittest individual which has blowback effects like breeding disease and things like the potato famine and banana crisis.

>>7377
>Its obviously meant to be inflammatory
Ah yes the classic 'I was merely pretending to be retarded'
>Lysenkos primary claim has always been that inheritance of acquired characteristics plays some role in evolution. The only claim he is trying to refute is biological determinism
You obviously haven't read him and even if this were the case that wouldn't make him special since this was a position even held by many western scientists.
>the burden is on you to prove eugenics
LUL pure straw. Darwinism=Eugenics is peak burger autism
>>7379
I understand the point of the author and agree that it shouldn't be ruled out that some of Lysenkos seemingly insane experiments might have merit (besides the obviously fraudulent ones). His discovery of vernalisation was legitimate after all. However I'd still like to see some actual recreations of these experiments. Until then all this amounts to is speculation.

>>7377
No, this isn't the argument against genes. The argument against "genes" is that they are a scholastic category from the outset, and that heredity does not function in the way Mendel thought it did. What is called a "gene" today is not Mendel's gene but something else, which doesn't map cleanly onto any trait. Mendel's gene was an idea of a "unit" of heredity, which is nonsense. You can only hope to isolate traits and then claim it was a gene, which in Mendel's time was a phantom. The big race in genetics was to find out what this "gene" actually was, and when Lysenko is most active, the "gene" is starting to lose its reputation. The honest geneticists at the time admitted that they really didn't know much about what it meant, except that they could look at chromosomes and find a few things. But, speaking of what chromosomes and DNA do is not the same as Mendel's "gene".

The use of DNA as "code" is already betraying that the old, scholastic notion of the gene prevails over what DNA is likely to actually do, which is chemistry. You can only isolate a few very basic, chemical traits, and even then genetic engineering is just hoping that they found something that works when they splice a DNA fragment in.

"Genes have a dialectical relationship with the environment" is a mouthful of nonsense. No one at the time believed with any seriousness that the environment mattered for nothing, or that life always developed unimpeded. It was already known that Down Syndrome was a mutation, since there did not appear to be any hereditary component that could be isolated. That's usually the big one eugenics likes to cling to, because it's about the only victory they had at discovering "genetic stupidity". The question was what, if anything, causes hereditary traits to appear in offspring, which was a common observation that had always been assumed true, with good reason. "Innate" and environmental causes were always expected to have some interaction, and realistically those innate traits have to be determined by some physical thing, which was found to be DNA. The problem with DNA is that it isn't particularly useful for actually linking a sequence of DNA to a trait that is measurable, and the big race since DNA was to figure out what the hell it even meant. That project was scuttled at the turn of the 21st century, and we got what we got. This is when the ideologists like Dawkins try to tell us eugenics is totes real, because it was likely that investigation of the Human Genome Project would show that eugenics was a bunch of faggotry. It was necessary to scuttle it, and then mystify that this is in fact what happened. But really, the HGP was doomed because the approach to DNA and "the gene" was poorly understood from the start, and the attempt to arrest the life-form and manipulate its heredity like a computer program was never going to work with the approach they were using. Finding the magic genes to make people smarter would not be possible with the crude "genetic" engineering techniques they had in mind. The only thing they have found is correlations with measured low intelligence, and there are huge problems with that measurement. For example, the primary criteria for being diagnosed as a mental defective is… hereditary status. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

>>7380
The experiments were not "insane". This whole narrative is pure ideology invented after WW2 as part of the anticommunist (fascist) rehabilitation project. At the time, the actual scientists admitted they didn't really know what the fuck they were doing, but the recently emerged technocratic polities could never admit that.

His argument is similar to Szasz's argument about mental illness. If heredity exists there must be a physical "organ of heredity". Since no such organ has been discovered its obviously bunk.

>>7382
That is not a very convincing argument of anything

>>7381
You seem to be taking up the point that all genetics is bullshit and hoax, so could you explain the apparent existence of biologically engineered animals that have traits only seen in very, very different types of animals eg. goats' milk with spider silk

>>7377
Lysenko wasn’t right per se, but he was not wrong. Moreover, the soviets cannot into genetics meme is an attempt to discredit them as a whole for a scientist who may have been put in a high place, but wasn’t that influential apart from pushing forward a few theories. Especially spurious are connections between him and the famine of 1932.

>>7383
No, its a correct argument. Many mental illnesses are fictions that have no physical basis and are used as a societal control mechanism. The same is true for genes, which exist to justify ownership and create monopoly profits based on rent.

>>7386
They have a social basis AND are instantiated through the brain’s biology, get it right.

>>7386
So all known examples of any kind of heritability are mere tricks of the universe on our feeble minds?

>>7386
this guy has the rentier gene and is coping hard

>>7390
can i see your 23andme? looks like you might have the attention whore gene

>>7389
as in rent seeking behavior?

>>7391
Mendelian cope

>>7388
do you have an argument?

>>7381
>The experiments were not "insane". This whole narrative is pure ideology invented after WW2 as part of the anticommunist (fascist) rehabilitation project. At the time, the actual scientists admitted they didn't really know what the fuck they were doing, but the recently emerged technocratic polities could never admit that.

Its pure cold war propaganda.

>>7394
If there is no way to have inheritance, could you explain even the most basic format by which reproduction creates children similar to their parents?

>>7399
>organisms only exist to serve genes
Only in the minds of literally fascists.

First of all, Lysenko refused to recognize chromosomes as the only carriers of heredity, as Morgan's chromosome theory claimed. An example of extrachromosomal transmission of hereditary properties, he considered vegetative hybridization - the grafting of one plant on another, in which the combined traits from both were transmitted in their seed offspring. The existence of such hybrids meant the possibility of transferring some hereditary properties without the participation of chromosomes, since during grafting, plants exchange only plastic substances with each other. “From the available materials it becomes clear to us that it is possible to change the breed, to combine the hereditary properties of one and the other breed without the" transition "of the chromosomes of these breeds, that is, without the direct transfer of chromosomes from one breed to another. as I said, the chromosomes from the rootstock to the scion or vice versa do not "go", and the properties of heredity can be transmitted by the exchange of plastic substances "(Agrobiology, p. 290)." The stock and the scion could not exchange chromosomes of cell nuclei, and nevertheless, hereditary properties can be transferred from the rootstock to the scion and vice versa. Consequently, the plastic substances produced by the scion and stock also have the properties of the rock, i.e. heredity. A large amount of factual material on the vegetative transfer of various traits of potatoes, tomatoes and a number of other plants leads to the conclusion that vegetative hybrids do not fundamentally differ from sexually obtained hybrids. Any trait can be passed from one breed to another through vaccination as well as sexually. The behavior of vegetative hybrids in subsequent generations is also similar to the behavior of sexual hybrids. When sowing seeds of vegetative hybrids without further grafting, for example, tomatoes, the hybrid properties of plants of the previous generation are obtained in plants of subsequent generations "(" Genetics ";" Agrobiology ", pp. 288-290).

Obtaining vegetative hybrids contradicted the provisions of Morgan's chromosome theory. "After all, it is no secret for the representatives of Mendelism-Morganism that if vegetative hybrids are possible, then only chromosomes remain from the so-called Morgan chromosome theory of heredity, and the whole theory, that is, morganism, disappears … Mendelists-Morganists cannot agree with this position without breaking with the basis of their doctrine, with the so-called chromosomal theory of heredity. substances between the grafted components? " ("Agrobiology", pp. 284, 289).

Hence the following conclusions: "(any particle of living matter, even) the plastic substances produced by the scion and stock also have the properties of the breed, that is, heredity." "Hereditary properties can be transferred from one breed to another without direct transfer of chromosomes" ("Genetics"; "Agrobiology", pp. 289-290) 36 .

The concept of heredity. In the chromosomal theory, heredity was considered a property of chromosomes, a substance of heredity, which determines, in the process of development of an organism, certain of its hereditary characteristics, but is not subject to the influence of living conditions on the organism - it does not change its structure in the processes of vital activity, metabolism.

Michurinsk biology considered this concept of heredity, which separates it from the main feature of a living organism - interaction with the external environment - erroneous; "heredity is a property of a being, not a substance" (Lysenko).

Lysenko proposed to define heredity as "the property of a living body to require certain conditions for its life, its development and definitely respond to certain conditions" ("On the situation.", "Agrobiology", pp. 432, 562). According to him, heredity was "a concentrate of conditions" influences "of the external environment, assimilated by plant organisms in a number of previous generations" ("Genetics").

Colleagues and associates of T.D. Lysenko:

"Any genotype was formed over many generations during the interaction of its ancestors, parents with external conditions, and external conditions were an active factor, and not just an environment in which the genotype changed due to its inherent internal forces of development" (MA Olshansky) ("Controversial issues.", P. 346).

"Heredity is the sum of all past environmental conditions" (L. Burbank)

The whole cell as the basis of heredity. Experiments with vegetative hybridization showed Lysenko that not only chromosomes, but also other parts of the cell, in particular, plastic substances, "possess the properties of heredity," are responsible for the formation of some hereditary traits. From this it followed that the idea of ​​Morgan's followers about chromosomes as the only carriers of heredity, and also, all the more, the Weismannist idea that some germplasm located on chromosomes is responsible for heredity, is incorrect. This is what Lysenko had in mind when he said: "Chromosomes Michurin genetics recognizes, does not deny their presence. But it does not recognize the chromosomal theory of heredity, does not recognize Mendelism-Morganism" (Genetics).

Lysenko proposed to consider the whole cell as the "carrier" of the properties of heredity, or its "basis". "Not only chromosomes have heredity, but a living body in general, any part of it." "The hereditary base is not some special self-propagating substance. The hereditary base is a cell that develops, turns into an organism." Lysenko, of course, recognized the special role of chromosomes in the transmission of heredity. "Does the stated role of chromosomes diminish? Not at all. Is heredity transmitted during the sexual process? Of course, how could it be otherwise." "In the germ cells, the potential hereditary properties inherent in the entire organism are most pronounced in comparison with other cells of the organism" (Agrobiology, pp. 193, 575).

Recognizing the concept of "gene", Lysenko gave it a different meaning than his opponents. “Academician Serebrovsky is also wrong when he asserts that Lysenko denies the existence of genes … We deny the concept that you put into the word“ gene ”” (Agrobiology, p. 195). Since the property of heredity, according to Lysenko, was possessed not only by chromosomes, but also by other parts of the cell, he could not agree with the Weismannist idea of ​​a "gene" - an internal factor of heredity - as a section of chromosomes, a "bead on a string of chromosomes." According to Lysenko, heredity and its factors were "smeared" throughout the cell.

Study of heredity. In Morgan's chromosome theory, the study of heredity consisted in the study of the relationship of chromosomes with certain inherited characteristics of the organism, and the study, with the help of chemical and other similar influences, the internal structure of chromosomes.

For the main purpose of Michurin biology - to study the influence of the living conditions of an organism on its heredity and then to control heredity with the help of variations of these conditions - the methods of chromosomal theory did not give much. Lysenko proposed to know the properties of heredity by studying the influence on it / on the hereditary characteristics of the living conditions of the organism. "Revealing the environmental conditions required by a living body (organism) for the development of certain traits or properties is the study of nature, that is, heredity, of a particular trait or property" (Agrobiology, p. 433).

Instead of studying the physical or chemical effects on chromosomes, the alleged substance of heredity, Lysenko proposed studying the effect of living conditions on a creature - an organism and its heredity / hereditary characteristics. He called the laws of these effects biological and considered them irreducible to physical and chemical. "Biological laws are not physical, chemical or mathematical laws … Heredity is the business of biologists, not chemists … A good chemist will not express a biological essence in chemical language … The property of heredity is not a substance, but creature " 37 .

the nature of "winter" and "springiness" of cereal plants, how to control the development of these properties, from the above study does not follow at all. If we characterize the heredity of an organism or its individual properties according to the needs in the external environment for the development of these properties and signs, then this reveals the essence of the nature of these properties, signs <and then you can learn how to manage it by changing conditions> "(Agrobiology, p. . 433-434).

The knowledge of such laws, according to Lysenko, made it possible to solve the main task of Michurin biology - to achieve a directed change in heredity by changing the living conditions of the organism. "Knowledge of the natural requirements and the relationship of the organism to the conditions of the external environment makes it possible to manage these relations. Moreover, on the basis of such knowledge, it is possible to purposefully change heredity" ("On the position."; "Genetics").

Attitude towards genetics. Etc. Lysenko highly appreciated genetics as one of the important branches of biology.

>“I had to meet with Academician TD Lysenko many times … There was not a single attack in the lectures of the academician against genetics as a science. , but this is a discussion " F.T. Morgun

At the same time, Lysenko rejected many of the positions of the Weisman-Morgan school, the most authoritative in the 1910s and 1930s. directions in genetics. In his opinion, the concepts of Michurin biology illuminated the issues of heredity and variability more correctly; in addition, Weismanism did not provide explanations or ignored a number of facts that found their place in Michurin biology.

>“I will repeat once again what we have said many times: all the true facts obtained by classical genetics, biochemistry and biophysics fit completely into the concept of the Michurin direction of biological science. But not all the true facts known in biological and biochemical sciences fit into the concept of classical or molecular genetics. ” Lysenko

Therefore, "more correct", or real genetics, etc. Lysenko considered the direction that he and his colleagues was developing - Michurin biology.

>"We do not reject genetics. Real genetics is Michurin biology" T.D. Lysenko

Lysenko ridiculed the explanations of the Weismannists, who called the reasons for the change in heredity of mutations, and the reasons for the increase in mass and volume in plant hybrids - heterosis: the organism mutates " 21 . "Genetics explain the greater power of plants from intravarietal crossing by heterosis, that is, greater power" 228 . Noticing petitio principi in such "explanations" was hindered by the use of multilingual terms denoting the same concept, which was also noted by Lysenko.

>"If the endless genetic terms were translated into Russian, it would be incomparably easier for many geneticists to understand the wrong foundations of their science." Lysenko

Some dogmatic provisions of the Weismann-Morgan school, in particular the doctrine of "random mutations", according to Lysenko, did not give anything for practice and contradicted the scientific approach to the study of nature. He called such provisions "pseudoscientific."

>"Science is the enemy of chance" T.D. Lysenko

>"Nothing deserves the name of true science if it does not demonstrate the great, underlying the Universe, order"
T. D. Lysenko

Finally, Lysenko repeatedly emphasized the solution by Michurin biology in practice of the problem of directed change in plant heredity by changing their living conditions.

>"In general terms, it is clear to everyone that external conditions play a colossal role in the formation of plant organisms. But, as far as I know, no one has yet been able to experimentally show what conditions, when and at what moments of plant development are necessary in order to change the nature of plants in this direction. subsequent generations … Our science has mastered the issues of directed change in heredity, and the priority of this important discovery in biological science will remain with the Soviet Union, with Michurin biology "T.D. Lysenko

anyone got a translator that can do 200 pages?

brb getting a plant biology degree to own the libs online

>>7377
>>7381
People ITT don't understand genetics or epigenetics. A gene is a length of DNA that codes for a specific protein or RNA. They are distinct, actually existing units: they have specific sequences (start and stop codons) saying "start transcribing here" and "stop here", denoting the starts and ends of proteins (which are linear). That's why we can say things like Arabidopsis thaliana has 27 029 genes.
>The use of DNA as "code" is already betraying that the old, scholastic notion of the gene prevails over what DNA is likely to actually do, which is chemistry. You can only isolate a few very basic, chemical traits, and even then genetic engineering is just hoping that they found something that works when they splice a DNA fragment in.
Genetic engineering exists. We are routinely making e.g. herbicide resistant crops by taking herbicide resistance genes from other plants and splicing them in. We can look at the gene and see that it codes for a protein that due to its structure, physically binds to the herbicide and chemically inhibits it.
>>7386
DNA is also literally, physically inherited from the parent into the offspring. Yknow, when the cell divides. We found the physical basis of inheritance when we figured out what DNA was. Mendel got a lot wrong (and had dodgy scientific practice) but he was the first to discover the modular nature of inheritance, which we now understand is because the parts of the DNA sequence which directly affect the phenotype are in fact modular to some extent, i.e., there is A gene that creates A protein which alters the function of the cell. This is only visible macroscopically when we look at single-gene (Mendelian) traits, but the inheritance is still made up of modular units.
And none of this is saying that environmental factors can't affect inheritance, or that inheritance is the only thing that determines phenotype. We know from epigenetics that environmentally induced processes such as DNA methylation, which forcibly suppresses transcription of certain genes, can physically carry over along with the rest of the genome when inherited from the parent into the offspring. But epigeneticists are still geneticists. The trait gets inherited because e.g. DNA methylation occurs over a certain gene.

>>7400
What do you think is the logical consequence of believing in this kind of idealism? Do you pick and choose to be a materialist only when it suits you?

A connection between the variability of traits and differences in the conditions of the habitat of living organisms was noticed rather quickly. For example, similar plants growing in different climatic zones could have different growing seasons. Fish that lived in underwater caves see worse than fish near the surface of the water. The adaptive nature of variability was also noted - for example, the giraffe's long neck allowed it to get food from tall trees.

A number of prominent biologists and breeders believed that changes in living conditions have an impact on heredity. The outstanding naturalist of the 19th century Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882) wrote: "Changed conditions cause inherited consequences, for example, a change in the period of flowering of plants transferred from one climate to another." The famous American breeder L. Burbank (1849 - 1926), who bred more than 800 new varieties of plants, believed that “every plant form that exists on our earth more or less changes and has always changed under the influence of the environment."

He gave the following example of the influence of living conditions on the change in hereditary properties: We have a plant - sea radish. Initially, she spent a significant portion of her strength on seeds. It should not be forgotten that the formation of seeds requires an enormous expenditure of juices and vital energy from the plant. But the sea radish was more and more taken out of the rhizomes, so that, in the end, it stopped giving seeds. " A similar example was given by a modern specialist in seed production, Doctor of Agricultural Sciences P.F. arrow (gave seeds), but, propagated in a number of generations vegetatively, he lost the ability to form seeds.

At the beginning of the 19th century J.-B. Lamarck (1744 - 1829) hypothesized the cause of the variability. He suggested that living organisms are capable of transmitting to descendants some traits acquired by them during their lifetime. "If circumstances lead to the fact that the state of individuals becomes for them normal and constant, then the internal organization of such individuals, in the end, changes. The offspring resulting from the crossing of such individuals retains the acquired changes and, as a result, a breed is formed that is very different from the one whose individuals all the time were in conditions favorable for their development ".

This idea is called the inheritance of acquired traits. Lamarck himself related his assumption more to changes in the body, which were the results of his own actions: exercise and non-exercise of organs, changes in diet, etc. His followers, supporters of the idea of ​​inheritance of acquired traits, called Lamarckists, focused on the 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, hard work or non-use of some organs has a significant effect; for example, I noticed that in the domestic duck the wing bones weigh less, and the leg bones are more in relation to the entire skeleton, than the same bones in the wild ducks, and this difference can be confidently attributed to the fact that the domestic duck flies much less and walks more than its wild ancestors … Significant inherited udder development in cows and goats in those countries where these animals are usually milked, compared to animals in other countries, is probably another example of the consequences of an active work of the body ". Darwin also proposed a certain mechanism of the influence of body changes on the genetic apparatus: somatic cells, which had changed under the influence of adaptive reactions, excreted some "gemmules" or "pangens" carrying hereditary properties. Timiryazev also argued that "in relation to plants, Lamarck stood on a strictly scientific basis of facts, and the thoughts expressed by him retained their full significance at the present time. He considered the source of changes in plants solely to be the influence of external conditions - the environment." Similarly, Michurin argued that “not only properties and qualities inherent in producing plants are hereditarily transmitted to offspring, but also those forcibly made by man changes in the structure of the plant organism are also transmitted in many cases and, moreover, in rather sharp forms, which are so often used by us in gardening. "Burbank said:" The inheritance of acquired traits exists, or I do not know anything about the life of plants … 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. "

Lysenko believed that between the laws of different sciences there is a certain hierarchy corresponding to the hierarchy of the levels of matter (motion) described by these laws: chemistry ^ physics ^ biology ^. The laws that determine the organization of matter at a higher level have a higher status (more valuable for human practice) and are not expressed through the laws that determine the organization of matter at a lower level. In particular, Lysenko emphasized that biology cannot be reduced to either physics or chemistry; that biophysical and biochemical laws, although they help biology, have a lower status in it than the biological laws of growth and development of living organisms. Biological phenomena are not the "mechanical sum" of physical movements or chemical reactions; they represent the next higher level of movement. Revealing, what chemical reactions accompany or even cause certain phenomena in the world of the living, we cannot say that we have “reduced biology to chemistry”; biology is not chemistry or physics.

"Biological science cannot be reduced, its core can only be reduced to chemical and physical phenomena occurring in living bodies … I fully agree that without the corresponding development of chemistry and physics as sciences, biology as a science would be impossible. But this does not mean that biology as a science is reduced to the chemistry and physics of living things … Biological science must reveal biological laws, the laws by which biological objects arise, live and develop … The correct formula is that without the corresponding development of the chemistry and physics of living bodies, biology itself is impossible as a science , does not mean that biology is chemistry and physics … Biological laws are not physical, chemical or mathematical laws, but biological "

These arguments of Lysenko illustrate the relationship between the laws of mechanics - the laws of motion of physical bodies - and the laws of chemistry - the laws of molecular interactions, or quantum physics - interactions and transformations of elementary particles. Although physical bodies consist of molecules, atoms, elementary particles, the laws of mechanics are not derived from chemistry or quantum physics.

The laws of physics - the laws of motion of physical bodies - express the physical essence of these bodies; the laws of chemistry - the laws of interaction between molecules - express their chemical essence. Similarly, the laws of development of living organisms express their biological essence, which is not reducible to chemistry and physics.

"A good chemist will not express a biological essence in chemical language … In a simplified way, researchers who, having found or, more often than not, only making attempts to find changes in the chemical reaction of a plant at a particular stage of development, think that they have already opened the very deep “essence” of vernalization, light stage, etc. Chemical indicators of stages are only one of many indicators, and although they are certainly essential, they are still far from the “last essence of life.” We are for the study of chemical, physical , morphological and any other indicators of development. But we are against reducing the essence of stage development to these indicators. And we, first of all, support the study of developmental biology, the study of the specifics of biological relations "

Living organisms develop in accordance with their heredity and under certain conditions in the external environment. Therefore, for the understanding of biological laws, that is, the laws of development of living organisms, the primary role is played by the study of the influence on them of changes in living conditions - and not the study of the effects of alien substances that are not required for development - for example, chemical or radioactive - substances. Michurinsk biology, developmental biology, developed by Lysenko and his colleagues, just drew attention to the change in the development of organisms when their living conditions change. We can say that developmental biology studied the "biological trajectory" of the growth-development of living organisms, in the same way as mechanics studied the trajectory of "material bodies" in physical space. Studying the behavior of this "

Heredity, as a biological property (the property of "a being, not a substance"), also had to be studied, first of all, by biological, and not by physical or chemical methods. The search for the biological laws of heredity, according to Lysenko, should have been carried out by studying the influence on it of changes in the conditions of life.

The laws of interaction of living organisms, including their "hereditary basis", with their living conditions were the main subject of study in Michurin biology, developmental biology.

Both processes - both the development of the organism and the formation of its hereditary basis - were considered by Lysenko as interdependent and reciprocal; he figuratively represented them as simultaneous spiral unwinding and twisting. "Figuratively speaking, the development of an organism is like unwinding the inside spiral, swirling in previous generations. This breakout is simultaneously screwing for future generations"

>>7387
No psychiatrist says anything about "brain diseases", which (a) would be neurology anyway, and (b) would undermine the claims of psychiatry which concern behavior rather than particular organs. Psychiatry goes out of its way to discount physical, neurological causes in diagnosis, because if there is something physical you would treat the physical problem rather than enforcing a political program. When a psychiatrist prescribes a drug, it is specifically to influence behavior in some way that is desirable for political purposes. You don't really get into psychiatric care unless you're forced into it, or get roped into it by someone else.

>>7396
Yep, and so is the black legend around Lysenko.

>>7408
Based Anon preaching the Lysenkoist truth.

>>7396
>>7409
Funny how it's only China that didn't abandon Lysenko in the world (don't know enough about other AES to really talk), and all the articles in defence of Lysenko in the West are penned by chinese academics. Almost like chinese viewed anti-lysenkoism as a part of de-stalinization, so, a purge of scientists due to political reasons.

>>7408
>The laws that determine the organization of matter at a higher level have a higher status (more valuable for human practice) and are not expressed through the laws that determine the organization of matter at a lower level. In particular, Lysenko emphasized that biology cannot be reduced to either physics or chemistry; that biophysical and biochemical laws, although they help biology, have a lower status in it than the biological laws of growth and development of living organisms. Biological phenomena are not the "mechanical sum" of physical movements or chemical reactions; they represent the next higher level of movement. Revealing, what chemical reactions accompany or even cause certain phenomena in the world of the living, we cannot say that we have “reduced biology to chemistry”; biology is not chemistry or physics.

Lysenko is doing cringe bickering, about his scientific field being more important then somebody else's, he also is wrong to demote physics and chemistry to the lower levels that have nothing to contribute to biology:

Evolution is change over time. More specifically, it is changes within a biological population over successive generations. Ultimately, biological complexity is one of the most important things to come out of evolution. Things started simple. Then genes mutated, cells interacted with their environment, mitochondria stopped being living organisms and started being part of a cell and complex life. We know where the complexity of life came from. We have elephants, and snakes, viruses and the tardigrade because of evolution. But we don’t know where itself life came from.

Abiogenesis is the origin of life from non-living matter. And it has been a burning question for some time (since long before Darwin came up with the Theory of Evolution). But there may be an answer looming on the horizon.And this answer is surprisingly simple: Life is inevitable.

Physicists have argued that the occurrence of life is a matter of inevitability. The models that physicists have come up with are formulated on previously established theories in physics, and they conclude that matter will generally develop into systems that, when “driven by an external source of energy” and “surrounded by a heat bath,” become increasingly efficient at dissipating energy.

In order to understand the theory, you need to understand the second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of increasing entropy or the “arrow of time.” The second law states, “The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.” To put it very bluntly, entropy means that things fall apart. Hot things cool off, gas will diffuse through air, a house crumbles but does not instantaneously add on a new kitchen. Thus, as previously stated, things fall apart; they get more disordered; energy tends to diffuse as time progresses. Entropy is basically a measure of this tendency.

It is measuring how dispersed the energy is among the particles in a system, and how diffuse those particles are throughout space. This system is pretty disordered, therefore higher entropy. We know that, on the whole, entropy always increases because of a simple matter of probability: There are more ways for energy to be spread out than for it to be concentrated. Thus, as particles in a system move around and interact, they will, through sheer chance, tend to adopt configurations in which the energy is spread out.

Physicist Jeremy England explains, “We can show very simply the more likely evolutionary outcomes are going to be the ones that absorbed and dissipated more energy from the environment’s external drives on the way to getting there, for example, think about how the overall entropy of the universe increases during photosynthesis as the sunlight dissipates. If you shine a light for long enough time on a patch of dirt, eventually a plant will grow there because it's better at increasing entropy than just the patch of dirt alone.

>>7412
>his scientific field being more important then somebody else's, he also is wrong to demote physics and chemistry to the lower levels
Hes not. He is pointing out that they are separate fields and respecting the differences, just like philosophy and physics. Where the fuck are you pulling these assumptions from? Why did you type 5 off topic paragraphs about science 101? Do you really think people don't already know all that? It comes off like you are typing a lot to try and demonstrate how much you know instead of engaging with the argument.

>>7406
It encodes nucleotides into amino acid sequence in a protein. Codons, or triads of nucleotides, are recognised by tRNA which have one end that binds to the three nucleotides and one end that holds a specific amino acid. As each tRNA binds, an amino acid is added to the peptide chain. Proteins are chains of amino acids. Read a high school biology textbook.

I'm not a gay ass lysenkoist, but it's nice to see actual debates here, this is why this place is better than /pol/ where the discussion would have degenerated into "Sneed" "seethe" "YWNBAW" and "dilate" one liners.

>>7408
>In particular, Lysenko emphasized that biology cannot be reduced to either physics or chemistry; that biophysical and biochemical laws, although they help biology, have a lower status in it than the biological laws of growth and development of living organisms
>Biological science must reveal biological laws, the laws by which biological objects arise, live and develop … The correct formula is that without the corresponding development of the chemistry and physics of living bodies, biology itself is impossible as a science , does not mean that biology is chemistry and physics … Biological laws are not physical, chemical or mathematical laws, but biological "
>Heredity, as a biological property (the property of "a being, not a substance"), also had to be studied, first of all, by biological, and not by physical or chemical methods. The search for the biological laws of heredity, according to Lysenko, should have been carried out by studying the influence on it of changes in the conditions of life
Imagine actually believing that and calling yourself a materialist
>>7413
>Do you really think people don't already know all that?
You obviously don't

>>7417
>>7415
Nonmarxists should use flags or preface their statements with "I'm an idiot who doesn't understand dialectics but, "

>>7415
I already tried reasoning with high school biology in earlier threads. It doesn't work, most of the Lysenkoists are Americans who never learned this in school.

>>7404
> This is only visible macroscopically when we look at single-gene (Mendelian) traits
You undermine your entire argument with this qualifier. Most traits aren't monogenic especially not the ones that determine the differences between species, like wings instead of arms. Everything else you wrote and >>7415 here is a describing DNA as a chemical process that has nothing to do with biology or inheritance, which supports the post you are quoting.

>Recognizing the concept of "gene", Lysenko gave it a different meaning than his opponents. “Academician Serebrovsky is also wrong when he asserts that Lysenko denies the existence of genes … We deny the concept that you put into the word“ gene ”” (Agrobiology, p. 195). Since the property of heredity, according to Lysenko, was possessed not only by chromosomes, but also by other parts of the cell, he could not agree with the Weismannist idea of ​​a "gene" - an internal factor of heredity - as a section of chromosomes, a "bead on a string of chromosomes." According to Lysenko, heredity and its factors were "smeared" throughout the cell.

oh and Lysenko was right, again

>>7413
> He is pointing out that they are separate fields
That's wrong , and that's why I put 5 on-topic physics paragraphs in. To demonstrate that you can't neatly separate scientific fields.

Read the article from Jeremy England
https://aeon.co/essays/does-the-flow-of-heat-help-us-understand-the-origin-of-life

Here is an easy introduction video to the thermodynamics of life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAZrpIMgCKk

Here is a more advanced video to the thermodynamics of life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciuVSKyM0cQ

>>7414
when you can only think in terms of boxes
picture is for you

>>7422
This is really disappointing anon. Your not addressing the topic your making assumptions and trying to teach people about your pet topic. Should we call you thermodynamics-kun? Do you want to go make a thread about abiogenesis? I promise I'll post in it.

>Anon is doing cringe bickering about his scientific field being more important then somebody else's

>>7422
>>7417
Why do you have to be so cringe and sneaky? Why cant you just outright say that you disagree with Lysenko because you think dialectics are wrong? Is it because you know openly disagreeing with Marxism will discredit you?

>>7420
>If it isn't visible, it doesn't real
Genes code for proteins and RNAs. They don't directly code for macroscopic traits. Before knowledge of the existence of DNA, the fact that genes exist was only deducible from the specific case of monogenic traits, like in Mendel's experiments. That doesn't mean genes only exist, or genes are only inherited, if they determine monogenic traits.
>especially not the ones that determine the differences between species, like wings instead of arms.
Actually, Hox genes code for things like this, because they are transcription factors. It's not impossible. By changing 1 gene we can get flies that grow legs instead of eyes, etc. Polygenic traits are usually things like height. And differences between species can be much less than this, and are subjective anyway. I don't see what your point is supposed to be with this statement, though. Inheritance exists and has a physical basis, which is DNA, and DNA contains genes, which are therefore inherited. A thing's inheritance has an effect on its phenotype, but of course this is not the only thing that determines phenotype. And genes are not the only things that are inherited, because stuff like DNA methylation can be passed down generations, as well as all the other non-genetic crap contained in DNA that is never transcribed and has no effect on phenotype (in fact, the majority of DNA). But none of this implies anything like "genes don't exist" or "genes are just a scholastic category".
>Everything else you wrote and >>7415 (You) here is a describing DNA as a chemical process that has nothing to do with biology or inheritance, which supports the post you are quoting.
DNA is inherited, DNA contains genes. Genes are inherited. This is nothing but biology and inheritance. What is inheritance except for what is passed down from generation to generation?
>>7418
Retards who haven't read a page of elemantary biology should also preface their statements with a similar qualifier.

>>7425
You do realize that paraphrasing a textbook isn't an argument right? First you need to acknowledge what is being discussed, and then respond to it. Listing things you just read of wikipedia without context doesnt' mean anything.

>>7424
Quick reminder for retards like you that Marx was a massive fanboy of Darwin and saw no contradiction between his Origin of Species and Dialectical Materialism.

>>7425
> DNA is inherited, DNA contains genes. Genes are inherited. This is nothing but biology and inheritance. What is inheritance except for what is passed down from generation to generation?
<Biology isn’t based on chemistry, you guys! Mitosis and meiosis do not describe chemical processes!
Look, the lysenkoists are trying to defend a guy who was wrong on a lot of issues but still made important contributions to science or set the seeds for studying those contributions, even if he was wrong in important ways. But you’re tumbling into lolcow territory

>>7428
And Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which inspired Lysenko. Try reading the thread.

>>7429
Where did I say biology isn't based on chemistry? What the fuck are you talking about? I'm just pointing out: genes are not just a scholastic concept, but have a real physical basis. Because there are people denying it in this thread.

>>7430
Lysenkos theory of evolution both contradicts Lamarcks and Darwins theory of evolution. Instead of reading this thread you should actually read Lysenko, so you know what you are defending.

>>7432
*Lamarcks and Darwins theories of evolution
of course they didn't share the same

>>7433
Darwin, Lamarck, Michurin and Lysenko had similar/compatible views. Instead of reading wikipedia maybe you should read Darwin, so you know what you are defending.

>>7423
>Your not addressing the topic
I'm criticizing Lysenko's premise that biology just sits on top of physics and chemistry as a self contained block of knowledge. That there is no basis for interdisciplinary exchange. That's why I'm posting all that stuff, to prove my point.
>>7424
You don't need to agree with Lysenko to be a Marxist.
I think that the bits of Lysenko's theories that were correct are now called epigenetics.
To be honest I don't understand hegelian language. so i don't know if dialectics are wrong, it sounds like sophistry to me. Some of hegels philosophical concepts have better explanations like "to determine is to negate" is easier explained by Venn diagrams from set theory.

>>7434
Tell me which works by Lysenko and which works by Darwin you have read and I will show you how they contradict each other

>>7436
all of them. go

>>7437
Well at least I tried to give you a chance to make your argument as strong as possible.
In Lysenkos 1950 Article 'New Developments in the Science of Biological Species', he states the following:
>But Darwinism is based on one-sided and continuous evolutionism. Darwin's theory of evolution proceeds from a recognition of quantitative changes only: it refuses to take cognizance of the compulsory, law-governed nature of transformations, of transitions from one qualitative state to another. Yet without the conversion of one qualitative state into another, without the genesis of a new qualitative state within the old, there is no development but only increase or decrease of quantity, only what is usually called growth.
>Darwinism firmly established in the science of biology the idea that organic forms have their origin in other such forms. However, development in living nature was conceived of by Darwinism as only a continuos, unbroken line of evolution. In biological science–precisely science and not practice–species therefore ceased to be considered as real, separate qualitative states of living nature.
>Thus, in his Origin of Species, Darwin wrote:
>"From these remarks it will be seen that I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience's sake,"
>K. A. Timiryazev wrote to the same effect: "Variety and species represent merely a difference in time. No line of demarcation is conceivable here."
>Thus, according to the theory of Darwinism, there should be no natural border lines, no discontinuity between species in nature.
>According to evolutionism the development of the organic world may be reduced to mere quantitative changes, without anything new being born within the old, without the development of a new quality, a different totality of properties. This theory holds that so great an interval of time is required for one species to arise from another that the entire history of the human race has not been long enough for the emergence of one species from another to be observed.
>After all, organic nature has been in existence for aeons of time. One would therefore suppose that this "was ample time for a new species to arise from an old and that as a result of such prolonged changes the appearance, the birth of new species should be observable by now.
>But the same theory declares that actually there should be no dividing line between the new, nascent species and the old, procreating species, for which research it is supposed to be altogether impossible to observe the generation of a new species within an old one.
>In spite of the theory of gradualness throughout, which recognizes no break in development, no transition from one quality to another, and which therefore asserts that there can be no boundaries between species, such boundaries do exist in actual fact, and every naturalist has long been fully aware of this. Therefore Darwinism was forced to invent so-called intraspecific competition, intraspecific struggle, to explain the gap between species. According to this theory all intermediate forms, which, it is maintained, completely filled the gaps between the species and thus constituted an unbroken gradation of forms in organic nature, dropped out in the process of the struggle as being less adaptive.
>Thus Darwin had recourse to the reactionary, pseudoscientific Malthusian doctrine of intraspecific struggle to gloss over the obvious incongruity between evolutionism and the real development of the plant and animal world. This struggle is supposedly called forth by the fact that always in nature more individuals of a given species are born than the conditions available for their existence permit. This is the basis on which Darwin built his so-called theory of divergence, i.e., divergence of characters, the appearance of breaks or discontinuities in the continuous range of organic forms, as a result of which easily distinguishable groups–species of plants and animals–are supposed to have arisen. Consequently, boundaries, breaks between closely related species, came about, according to Darwinism, not as a result of qualitative changes or the emergence of qualitatively new groups of organisms–species of plants or animals–but in consequence of a mechanical dropping out, of a mutual extermination of forms which are qualitatively indistinguishable and constitute an unbroken series.
>This explains why all adherents of continuous evolutionism arrive at the conclusion that species in theory are not a result of the process of development of living nature discovered by science and practice but a convention employed for convenience in classification.
>Thus a palpable contradiction has always existed and still exists between the theory of evolution and reality, i.e., the development of organic nature. Darwinism could therefore only explain somehow or other the development of the organic world. But the explanation given could not serve as an effective theoretical basis for practical transformation, could not supply the theoretical foundation for a planned alteration of living nature in the interests of practical life.
>Although unable in his day to overcome Darwinism evolutionism in science, the eminent biologist K. A. Timiryazev, an ardent fighter against idealism and reaction in science, clearly perceived that species are not conventions but real phenomena of nature. He therefore wrote: "These border lines, these sundered links of the organic chain were not introduced by man into nature but forced upon him by nature. This real fact requires a real explanation."
>But no such real explanation could be forthcoming from the standpoint of continuous evolutionism, and Timiryazev himself did not go beyond the erroneous Darwinian statement that this fact was the result of the supposed existence of intraspecific competition.
>Only in our time and country, in the land of victorious Socialism, where dialectical materialism, developed in the works of Comrade Stalin, is the dominant world outlook, has it become possible to give a real explanation of real biological facts such as species. Kolkhoz-sovkhoz agriculture affords every opportunity for the unlimited development of materialist biological science, of Michurin's teaching–creative Darwinism. I. V. Michurin wrote: "We have as yet no correct exhaustive conception of how nature has created and still incessantly creates innumerable species of plants. At the present time it is of much greater benefit to us to realize that we have entered that stage of our historical development in which we are able personally to intervene in the actions of nature and, in the first place, can considerably accelerate and numerically increase the form building of new species, and, in the second place, artificially divert the building of their qualities in a direction more advantageous to man. We must furthermore appreciate the fact that such work, jointly performed by us and nature, represents progress of the highest order, of global significance. This will become evident to all from the results which the development of this undertaking will bring in the future–an undertaking powerfully impulsed by the Revolution that aroused millions of creative minds in the Land of Soviets. For here a considerable portion of the population has been given the opportunity to improve life round about by deliberate action."
>Michurin's teaching, creative Darwinism, does not regard development as continuous evolution but as the genesis of a new quality within the old, of a quality that contradicts the old, which undergoes a gradual quantitative accumulation of its peculiar features and in the process of its struggle against the old quality constitutes itself into a new, fundamentally different totality of properties with its own distinct law of existence.
>Dialectical materialism, developed and elevated to a new high plane by the works of Comrade Stalin, is the most valuable, most potent theoretical weapon in the hands of Soviet biologists, Michurinists, and this is the weapon they must use in solving the profound problems of biology, including the problem of the descent of one species from another.
>In agricultural practice as well as in nature relative but quite definite boundaries between species have always existed. By relative but quite definite specific boundaries we mean that parallel with similarity between species there always exists specific distinctness, which divides organic nature into qualitatively distinguishable yet interlocking links, or species.
>No continuous, unbroken series of forms between species–different, qualitatively definite states of living matter–can be found. This is so not because the intermediate forms in a continuous range have died out as a result of mutual competition, but because there is no such continuity in nature, nor can there be. Unbroken continuity does not exist in nature; continuity and discontinuity always form a unity.
>A species is a distinct, qualitatively definite state of living matter. Definite intraspecific interrelations between individuals are an essential characteristic of each species of plant, animal and microorganism. These intraspecific interrelations differ qualitatively from the interrelations between individuals of different species. Therefore, the qualitative difference between intraspecific and interspecific interrelations is one of the most important criteria for distinguishing between species and varieties.
>It is wrong to state that a variety is an incipient species and a species a sharply defined variety. For if this erroneous formulation were taken as the starting point it would follow that there is no qualitative difference, no line, between species and varieties and that the species is not a reality existing in nature but something contrived for convenience of classification, for systematics. Here, and of this mention has been made above, lies one of the basic contradictions between the theory of continuos evolutionism and the realities of the organic world. Varieties intermediate between species do not exist, not because these varieties dropped out in the process of an intraspecific struggle but because they never did and do not now arise in free nature.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lysenko/works/1950s/new.htm
As you can see Lysenko strongly disagreed with Darwins theory of evolution. Why did you lie about having read him?

Damn this is actually a pretty based thread, Imma request mods move it to /edu/ and archive it after it's all done and over with.

>>7412
The point is that biology is more than the sum of chemistry and physics that go into it, as new and larger structures involve concepts that do not apply to chemistry - and vice versa, concepts of biology do not apply to chemistry or physics, and are not built in to the fundamental nature of the universe. You wouldn't speak of molecules or a large ball of gas as "living", with the same behaviors as life-forms.

>Life is inevitable
This is trite and basically amounts to "anything is inevitable". All evidence is that complex life is a freakishly uncommon occurrence. The theory of life's inevitability arises from modern systems theory using life itself as its basic model for all systems. It's basically becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it is not understanding why systems theory is a useful paradigm and takes it to be some sort of religion. Your post reeks of scientism. If there is life, there is always an explanation for its origin, and not just "DURRR INEVITABLE". This thinking places a demiurge outside of nature compelling the world to take particular forms, rather than the understanding that life would have arisen from prior conditions, of things and forces which we could account for. And once you do have life, you're speaking of systems with different functionality than mere chemicals or physics, that we can describe with language that is not appropriate to chemistry.

>>7439
>Michurin's teaching, creative Darwinism,
>>7341

>>7434
>similar/compatible views

thats a nice long quote, but you haven't demostrated how this is related to your point. Marxists.org has only two essays in their whole Lysenko "section", I suggest reading some of the books or websites linked in the thread. I was really expecting you to cross reference quotes with The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication or On the Origin of Species not just text dump, 360, and walk away. Disappointing.

Lysenko did disagree with Darwin on the specifics and the proportion of changes that were due to the environment, but he didn't reject his theory. We also didn't throw out Newton after relativity was discovered because science isn't about owning people epic style and cancelling them for getting one thing slightly incorrect.

Punctuated equilibrium(what Lysenko called sudden jumps in evolution) was actually found to be true and Darwin is still taught and considered the father of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium is an example of the transformation of quantity into quality which is one of the three Laws of Dialectics.


Oh gee, looks like Lysenko was right

>>7442
You didn't give me any specific texts so I just picked the fastest and easiest to understand example, that demonstrates how Lysenko disagreed with Darwin. I gave you the chance to name any texts you wanted, but you couldn't do that because you are a lying retard who hasn't read shit. Anyway thanks for admitting that Darwinism and Lysenkoism aren't compatible.
Lysenko already describes Darwins position in the excerpt I posted, so why would you ask me to cite Darwin again on the same topic? Could it be that you also haven't read the quote I posted?
>Lysenko did disagree with Darwin on the specifics and the proportion of changes that were due to the environment, but he didn't reject his theory
Yes he did. According to Darwin there are no direct borders between species (which our modern understanding of evolution confirms you absolut moron). Lysenko disagreed and believed in species being a metaphysical category, which he tried to prove by claiming he could turn wheat into rye.
>science isn't about owning people epic style and cancelling them
Your Guru Lysenko seemed to disagree.
>Muh Punctuated equilibrium
Punctuated equilibrium has nothing to do with Lysenkos jumps in evolution and fits a lot better with Darwins theory of Natural Selection. Think of it in the following way. The environment an organism inhabits, exerts certain selection pressures upon it. If the organism is already adapted to this environment and manages to reproduce, its offspring will all be slightly different variations of the parent due to random mutations. These variants now face the same selection pressures, leading to those less similar to their already well adapted parent, having a harder time surviving and reproducing. Thus if the environment remains stable, the species that inhabit it won't appear to change, despite random mutations still happening.
Lets say the environment suddenly changes. Now the variants that are similar to the parent will also struggle to survive. Most of the time this leads to the entire species going extinct. However random mutations may occur that bring forth variants who are a little better suited for the new environment. If despite all odds these few newcomers keep managing to reproduce, their offspring my also develop further mutations, making them even better suited for the new environment. Over many generations these changes accumulate until eventually their distant descendants are well adapted to the new environment and further changes are no longer beneficial.
Your supposed proof for Lysenkos sudden jumps in evolution completely falls flat, because it in no way contradicts Darwins concept that there are no borders between species. Also as an anon earlier pointed out, the existence of transitional fossils further disproves Lysenkos nonsense.

Unrelated to the actual discussion but still funny
>not just text dump, 360, and walk away
>360
>and walk away
When Inrareddit sends its people, they're not sending their best

>>7443
>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

>>7445
Yes and he totally succeeded. The Cia is trying to cover it up by purging rouge grain from wheatfields.

>>7446
Wow. So he did it by planting in the fall and called it dialectical. Astounding

>>7444
>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
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788220/

>>7448
> 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.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-1127/

>>7449
>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.

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

>>7452
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. "

>>7453
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.

>>7454
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.

>>7456
>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.

https://stalinism.ru/elektronnaya-biblioteka/akademik-trofim-denisovich-lyisenko.html?start=8

>>7297
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

>>10468
the destruction of the kulaks and their actual agricultural expertise meant people like lysenko could come along and peddle their woo

>>10469
Thank you for sharing your opinion Professor Jordan Peterson

Bumpity

>>10469
>kulaks
>agricultural expertise
ha! good one!
funny

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

>>12357
u r dum

>>12357
lysenko good. others bad. simple as.

>>12357
The Mendeloid screams in fear when confronted by Chadsenko

>>7453
>Dubinin

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).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/molecular-genetics/#WhaGen

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.

>>7295
libtard redditors always argue that Lysenko's methods caused famine in both USSR and China? Is there any truth to this?

>>12495
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

>>12551
Can you describe what does methods were?

>>12573
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.

>>7313
>unchanging entities (the genes)
Nobody actually thinks this, you moron. What do you think gene mutation is?

>>7431
>>7425
>>7404
>>7376
>>7371
only sane poster ITT

there are some infracels here losing their minds over this shit

>>7456
>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

>>7371
>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!"

>>12609
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?

>>12621
Only proletarian wheat can do that

VINDICATED

ABSOLVED

>>7404
>. 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.

>>12701
>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.

>>12702
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.

>>12702
Are you using "highschool computer science" too?

>>12703
>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.

>>12705
>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
Ironic

this biochemical process is 'metaphysics' according to online MLs

>>7301
how can one anon be so right?
genetics is bourgeois pseudoscience
>>12755

>>12755
If it was described AS PROCESS (meaning, diealectically), instead of a collection of separate entities - genes, it wouldn't be metaphysical. That is the whole problem with the concept of the gene.

It's like you missed the whole point of the argument.

>>12604
>Basically, it's modern agriculture?
It's what people wish modern agriculture would look like. Lysenko dvocated ecological approach in creating a systems that support and restore each other without depletion. Something many "organic farming" and permaculture advocates are trying to push now.

Funny how many of their research and tecniques are based on soviet research from the 30s and 40s.

>>12832
How does being part of a process disproves the existence of genes? This is like claiming, that tides being created by the moons gravity, disproves the existence of the moon.

>>12860
Mendelism-Morganism-Weissmanism rejects cellular reproduction as a material process.
From the reductionist concept of a gene and germoplasm theory, it reifies genetic material into an inalterable metaphysical entity divorced from the rest of the organism. Mendel explicitly used his experiments to oppose Darwinism and establish genes as god-given.
Evolutionary gradualism reconciles this denial of genetic change by an inner impetus with Darwinism, by attributing it to random outside interference.

Studying the replication and expression of DNA is NOT the main objective of Mendelist genetics. I took a course in biology and even in the examples of DNA sequences we were given, the gene concept completely broke down. It is only rarely appropritate to attribute a phenotypical expression to the existence of a specific DNA segment, such as with some hereditary diseases.

>>12860
no one in their right mind would suggest for instance that tides have their own substantial reality

>>12706
>>If genes weren't distinct protein synthesis would be impossible.
>Not if you stop thinking in metapysical framework.
What the fuck are you talking about? Proteins are extremely specific molecules, not just in the chemical structure but physically too. If they get folded wrong they can become prions and cause degenerative diseases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion Whenever an organism synthesizes proteins it has to follow a discrete set of instructions, depending on the protein being synthesized, whether it's collagen, myostatin, hemoglobin, whatever. And that's literally what genes are for: they provide the instructions for protein synthesis. Genes may overlap or skip around the mRNA strand but there is a 1:1 relationship between the gene and the protein it codes for, because it's that sequence of nitrogen bases that gets read to produce the protein.

>>12867
DNA isn't translated as an immediate result of being present. Expression is regulated by numerous cell processes and altered by quirks in the sequences themselves. Even when translated, many sequences remain as non-coding RNA involved in other cell processes.
>Proteins are extremely specific molecules
This is simply not true. Straight from wikipedia:
<Most amino acids in a protein can be changed without disrupting activity or function, as can be seen from numerous homologous proteins across species (as collected in specialized databases for protein families, e.g. PFAM).
Proteins are usually only affected by (nonsilent) mutations in very specific sections. Amino acids differ in the propensities of their bases to form different intramolecular bonds, meaning even in these critical sections different base groups may fold close enough to preserve function.
Prions really say more about specific mutagens than the structure of proteins.

>>12868
>DNA isn't translated as an immediate result of being present.
So what? It gets copied to RNA for actual use. If the DNA had to be used directly then it would either have to get spliced up all the time or would need to bring the ribosomes to it for them to print proteins. Also, a cell is going to often need to print more than one of a protein at the same time, so of course creating a copy of the segments that are needed at a particular time is better and would come to dominate over organisms that use the cell's core genetic code directly. Eukaryotes also benefit by keeping the DNA shielded in the nucleus which can prevent damage.
>Expression is regulated by numerous cell processes and altered by quirks in the sequences themselves.
So what? Notice how you say "regulated" and "altered" instead of something like "defined." Additional processes affecting the outcome doesn't disprove another process. Somebody else mentioned tides, so to use that example, the topography of the land and seabed as well as weather conditions also affect the results of tidal shifts, but the primary and underlying factor is still the moon's gravity. Other conditions can affect how DNA is read, but that depends on the organism's functions being based on reading the DNA in the first place.
>Even when translated, many sequences remain as non-coding RNA involved in other cell processes.
So what? Very frequently in biology we can see one thing, a structure, an organ system, a hormone, doing multiple things. This is a common feature because it's more efficient to have one thing serving multiple purposes, since organisms generally live in resource-scarce environments and have to live within limits.

>Proteins are usually only affected by (nonsilent) mutations in very specific sections. Amino acids differ in the propensities of their bases to form different intramolecular bonds, meaning even in these critical sections different base groups may fold close enough to preserve function.
Just because they don't have to be exact matches doesn't mean they don't have to be constructed in a very specific way. You might be able to swap out amino acids, but you still have to put the protein together in the same manner for it to have its function. An organism often can't produce all the amino acids it needs (essential amino acids you get from your diet). Variable amino acids making up equivalent proteins in different species has more to do with adaptation to different amino acid profiles available in their diet, and doesn't relate as much to the overall structure of the protein itself. The actual assembly of the protein is relatively straightforward, but the folding is a much more complex process - there are only so many bonds you can make between atoms before you run out of available space in the valence shell, but as a protein molecule increases in size the possible folding patterns explode in complexity. Only certain patterns work, which is why different species have homologous proteins with the same basic shape fulfilling similar functions but built with different amino acids. You can sometimes swap out amino acids and be fine, but you can't alter the shape (folding) much without altering the function. That's the complicated part of protein synthesis, not the basic ingredients (which are still determined by the genes). The different protein construction is notably consistent - humans don't randomly get homologous proteins from a different species and vice versa. That's because these differences aren't random but coded genetically in different ways (because the species evolved with different pressures).
>Prions really say more about specific mutagens than the structure of proteins.
Prions can and do appear spontaneously due to misfolded proteins among other causes like exposure to existing prions.

>So what?
DNA is not the self promulgating, determining feature of biological life it is often made out to be. It stands in an inseparable relation to the specific type of cell it inhabits, that falls under the dialectical notion of necessity.
>the topography of the land and seabed as well as weather conditions also affect the results of tidal shifts, but the primary and underlying factor is still the moon's gravity.
Tidal forces result from the effect of the moon on the water, where the gravitational force of the water on the moon is negligeable. Cellular processes arise from many relationships between organelles, proteins and other specific molecules.
>Notice how you say "regulated" and "altered" instead of something like "defined."
Let me rephrase: DNA methylation and packaging defines which segments are being expressed.
If you needed a metaphor, you could say DNA is a collection of blueprints. The cell directs production by making them available to transcribing proteins.
>Prions can and do appear spontaneously due to misfolded proteins among other causes like exposure to existing prions.
How often does that occur? The only significant prion disease i'm aware of is BSE.
>the folding is a much more complex process
This is particularly important and further undermines your notion of 1:1 correspondence. Proteins need specific environments to properly fold (sometimes provided by chaperones).
I don't get why proteins being "constructed in a very specific way" is supposed to necessitate the existence of genes. Rather it seems to run counter to the concept, because their formation requires many factors beyond a DNA segment that is being transcribed and they don't show any genetic drift.
How do you reconcile the absence of homologous proteins in a species with evolutionary gradualism?

>>12870
>DNA is not the self promulgating, determining feature of biological life it is often made out to be.
Nobody is saying DNA solely determines biological life today, because many other complicating factors have since been discovered. That's how science works - you learn more information and it builds on the theory. DNA is still the primary defining element of an organism in the sense that all other functions depend on the sequences in the DNA.
>If you needed a metaphor, you could say DNA is a collection of blueprints. The cell directs production by making them available to transcribing proteins.
none of that means genes don't exist, it just means they are not sole determinants, which is not something mainstream biology argues.
>How often does that occur? The only significant prion disease i'm aware of is BSE.
Not very often, because protein synthesis is successful in the vast majority of cases (99+% because protein synthesis is happening all the time in all living cells), but yes there are a lot of prion diseases. One of the most threatening ones is chronic wasting disease which is endemic in North American deer but can spread to other species and contaminates the land where the infected deer roam and die.
>I don't get why proteins being "constructed in a very specific way" is supposed to necessitate the existence of genes.
Because the genes are what provides the instructions, as you put it "blueprints" for how to synthesize the proteins. For a given protein to synthesize regularly and consistently there has to be a sequence in the DNA that can be copied to produce those instructions for use. For every specific protein that can be produced there is a particular set of instructions. The specific sequence that produces that protein is the gene.
>Rather it seems to run counter to the concept, because their formation requires many factors beyond a DNA segment that is being transcribed and they don't show any genetic drift.
The genetic information is what provides the instructions, and cells reproduce most of the distinct parts of themselves according to the code in the DNA (mitochondria have their own DNA, and some things need to be absorbed from outside the body, viruses, etc). Environment also affects this but invoking the other contents of the cell to discredit genes makes no sense because those cellular components - the organelles, the cell membrane, the cytoplasm, etc - are biologically produced in the cell according to the instructions in the nuclear DNA. Just because the DNA does not contain within itself the entire "factory" of biological production doesn't mean that it doesn't contain the instructions. The DNA needs to be in a cell in order for the instructions to be read and to be used, but it is still the home of the instructions.
>How do you reconcile the absence of homologous proteins in a species with evolutionary gradualism?
This is a non-issue first of all (nowhere did I posit gradualism, which like its primary competitor punctuated equilibrium is an outdated model), but like I said above, the ingredients of proteins isn't just a product of evolutionary drift but also selection pressures, in particular the diet of the organism. An organism that gets more of a particular amino acid will be under pressure to substitute that amino acid over ones it gets less of, because that's advantageous. But more importantly the very idea that scientific theories need to be "reconciled" or else be rejected is completely wrongheaded. It's not unusual for scientific theories to at first seem in contradiciton because they are incomplete, only to be improved later. In the meantime they are valid insofar as they can be validated by experiment, and if/when the theories are reconciled the previous data don't stop being true. But when physicists moved on from classical physics to quantum physics or from newtonian to relativistic physics the idea of gravity or electrons didn't stop being "correct." The models describing them got more accurate (and more sophisticated).

I would be very interested to learn how viruses work according to Lysenkoists.

Fucking idiots in this thread pretending that gene scepticism is some fringe ML Lysenko fan shit and not something that is discussed by actual modern biologist.

>>7295
I suggest seeing my set of effortposts on the first Permaculture thread
>>>/hobby/34910

>>12872
Lysenkoist here. Viruses don't exist.

>>12861
>Mendelism-Morganism-Weissmanism rejects cellular reproduction as a material process.
show me a "mendelist-morganist-weissmanist" paper or whatever that says this

>>20911
It is commonly called the "Modern Synthesis". What is taught in schools is precisely this revisionist distortion of Darwinism by the mendelists.

Natural selction is real and Lysenko was a coping idealist, who had no coherent theory for how evolution works.

>>20919
Eugenics takes the notion of selective breeding, inseperable from the immediate conception of darwinism, and elevates it in opposition to the evolutionary process subject to history that is natural selection.
Lysenko was a darwinist, in many ways moreso than Morgan or Weissman.

>>20920
Explain the mechanisms behind Lysenkos theory of evolution. No word salad and no 'muh Weissman and Morgan'. Just a clear materialist explaination for how wheat can turn itself into rye.

>>20921
Lysenko was mainly an agronomist, not an evolutionary biologist. His views on evolution were more or less in line with the creative darwinism of most russian biologists at the time.
Darwin notably had his own theory about the inheritance of aquired characteristics. The michurinist tradition Lysenko came from crucially makes use of it by plant grafting, acting in opposition to mendelist dogma.
The only point on which Lysenko vocally disagreed with Darwin was the demarcation of species through selection pressure. A concrete counterexample he provides is the higher yield achieved by planting a dandelion variety in clusters. See the attached excerpt from Land in Bloom, winner of the 1949 stalin prize, for a more detailed account.

>Just a clear materialist explaination for how wheat can turn itself into rye.
That is already well discussed in >>7318 and the reply chain. What many western scientist took issue with and attribute the results of Lysenko's wheat experiment to, is the absence of strictly controlled laboratory conditions in many of his experiments. To understand this one must know that before Lysenko many biologists were of an entrenched elite uninterested in practical research.
Especially the mendelian geneticist wasted copious amounts of funding for purely scholastic experiments such as blasting flies with x-radiation. Lysenko brought biology back to the fields and in the process brought many concrete improvements to soviet agriculture.
The optimal method is obviously a combination of field research and laboratory research, but the focus should always lie on the former.

>>20922
I have read every pro lysenko post ITT. None of them could give me a coherent explanation for how evolution worked according to Lysenko. Try to describe the material processes behind creative darwinism. Don't bother writing anything about research history or the moral character of the scientific community, just give me a clear rundown on how wheat can turn into rye.

Lysenkochads stay winning

>The Collective Intelligence of Cells During Morphogenesis with Dr. Michael Levin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4Fm7jLNrpg

Genetics completely debunked in only two hours.

>>20924
There is nothing about one species transmuting itself into an entirely new one. Why did you lie about the content of this video?

>>20923
>>20927
To summarize previous posts in this thread: "Transmutation" of species lies entirely within the realm of possibility with horizontal gene transfer. The experiment carried out by Lysenko has neither been verified nor disproved by anyone else.
Lysenko at the time did not have the means to investigate the more elusive material processes in his experiments. Neither could the mendelists find their genes in a living cell. The material characteristics of chromatin could only start being investigated from the 60s onwards.
You are obviously hyperfocusing on this one experiment to reject all of Lysenko's work, as well as Michurin's prior work, and feel smug about defending the biologicist orthodoxy.

not even a relevant debate anymore. biology has moved far past this discussion. it's outdated.

>>20928
That is not what horizontal gene transfer means.
>The experiment carried out by Lysenko has neither been verified nor disproved by anyone else.
According to Lysenko wheat would regularly produce rye grains without human intervention. Strange how this never seems to have happened again in the history of agriculture.
>You are obviously hyperfocusing on this one experiment
I am hyper focusing on the things he actually wrote. Otherwise you will just claim that he discovered epigenetics, despite there being no connection to his theory of creative darwinism.
>all of Lysenko's work
How he treated cows better and whether or not that lead to more milk isn't relevant.

I now know why all of you are so mad
https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-4078