[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)


File: 1619680622371.jpg (963.78 KB, 1458x1977, Trofim_Lysenko_portrait.jpg)

 No.199950[View All]

Was he right bros? If so, elaborate. If not, elaborate.
161 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
>>

 No.220102

>>220089
>contradict the claims made in >>217114 (correct me if I'm wrong, it is difficult to decipher what the eugenics kun guy was going for).
I am not from the pro-Lysenko crowd, but i think that no one engages eugenics-kun because they value their own sanity, not because they accept him on their side or something. I wouldn't either just because i don't want to get several meaningless walls of text in response.
>>

 No.220106

>unironically being a lysenkoist
Bro, wtf
>>

 No.220140

>>220102
But I engaged him. Where is my wall of text about viruses being borg propaganda?
>>

 No.220148

>>220140
And i warned you not to do it, actually.

>Where is my wall of text about viruses being borg propaganda?

Guess he was busy or something, but that is his usual reaction. He is better left alone.

The point is, most people just ignore him. It isn't a good reason to say that they agree with him.
>>

 No.220518

File: 1620136954771.pdf (1.05 MB, 67x118, 285.full.pdf)

>>

 No.220523

>>219745
Lysenko wasn’t onto anything. Charles Darwin literally says the same exact thing if you read the thread.
Nothing he says is especially egregious or insane. Vavilov even agreed on his experiments results.
>>

 No.220530

>>219773
Nobody has even tried to replicate it
>>

 No.220532

>>219773
This is your only cope by the way, even though no premise is modern biology invalidates what Lysenko says.
>>

 No.220566

>>220089
>If the answer is yes please provide an example for this experiment being replicated outside of the USSR

Has anyone tried?
>>

 No.220946

>>220518
Did you just google Triticum durum, T. vulgare and chromosomes and post the first result you got? Hybridization has nothing to do with species turning into each other
>>220530
>>220566
this is just sad
>>

 No.220964

>>220946
I found it being from 1910 or so and noting non-mendelian inheritance interesting and vaguely relevant
>>

 No.221047

>>220946
what’s said is you coping about an experiment saying it’s wrong because it hasn’t even been replicated in good faith.
>>

 No.221070

>>220946
make one scientific claim that invalidates Lysenko
>>

 No.221084

>>221047
Flat Earther logic
>>

 No.221085

>>221084
no it’s not stupid dumbass, experiments against flat earth HAVE been replicated. nobody has tried to replicate Lysenko’s experiments to date.
>>

 No.221089

>>221085
you’ve been BTFO on every other scientific point in this thread so you’re just insisting on this one meaningless point.
>>

 No.221167

>>221070
Evolution occurs mainly through natural selection
>>

 No.221172

File: 1620153780480.png (87.25 KB, 1021x414, sak6jy67km.png)

>>221089
Pretty much. I don't think wheat turned into rye in the field. He probably was lying, had mixed seeds, or was tricked by someone who was motivated, but its wholly irrelevant.

>>220089
Eugenics-kun clearly has some idea what they are talking about but they fade back and forth from making sense to schizophrenic soup, so no, I don't agree with them. His Eugenic ideas are a direct result of Mendelian incoherence, but he has half the critique about abstraction right. Its really odd because he goes back and forth from critiquing analytic philosophy to taking its conclusions as assumptions.

The wheat study really has no bearing on the main point though, which is that genes are metaphysical and inheritance is environmental. It seems like the study was indeed wishful thinking, and a proposition of the kind of thing you would see in a dialectic relationship with the environment, but was probably wrong.

Its essentially a nature(genes) vs nurture(environment) debate, and the idea that its "both" in relation to each other is taken from my perspective to be enough alone to prove that evolution is dialectic and Lysenko was right. I couldn't care less about anything else. The nature vs nurture debate is over and the environment won, because the nature side was arguing that nurture has NO EFFECT AT ALL on inheritance, pic rel, and that individuals are genetically determined, which is 1) wrong 2) fascist idealism, which is precisely what Lysenko called it.
>>

 No.221216

>>221172
Thank you for being the first person ITT that was able to give a straight answer to my question. That being said I don't care about your opinion I care about Lysenkos opinion so it would be nice if you could provide evidense that Lysenko believed in the same sort of evolution as you do. Otherwise I will have to assume that you are just making this up. So far from what I've read Lysenko denied Natural Selection.
Also this is more of a Lamarckism vs Darwinism debate than nature vs nurture.
>>

 No.221238

Seems thing have changed on here. I remember getting howled at for defending Lysenko a few months ago. Encouraging signs.
>>

 No.221283

>>221216
I'm pulling from the first half of this text.
>>219682
>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lysenko/works/1950s/new.htm
>To this day no clear-cut definition of the term species exists in the science of biology.
>Before the advent of Darwinian biology a metaphysical, antiscientific view of species prevailed. Species were considered invariable and by no manner of means interconnected in origin and development. It was argued that no species could have descended from another species, that a separate act of creation had brought each species into existence independently of all the others.
>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.
>"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."
>Lamarck, and more particularly Darwin with his theory of evolution, utterly refuted the false assertion of the metaphysical biologists that species are eternal and fixed and that they originate independently of each other.
>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.
>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 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.

This is about dialectics, quantity -> quality, the contradiction in the term species, and describes the foundation for punctuated equilibrium.

>A change in the environmental conditions essential to the specific nature of the particular organisms sooner or later changes this specificity perforce–certain species originate other species. Under the influence of the changed conditions, which have become deleterious to the natures (heredities) of the organisms of the plant species growing here, rudiments of bodies of other species more fit for the changed environmental conditions arise and take shape in the bodies of the organisms constituting these species. Such qualitative heterogenity in the body of a plant organism which is characteristic of various other species may in some cases be detected even by the naked eye.


>The appearance under the influence of suitable environmental conditions of specific qualitative heterogeneity in the bodies of plants explains the often repeated creation of some species by others that have long been in existence. When plants of a particular species somehow or other come under the influence of conditions relatively unfavourable for the normal development of the peculiar features of their species, enforced alteration takes place, and rudiments of another species with peculiar features, more in accordance with the new environmental conditions, appear in the plant organisms of that particular species. As they are more responsive to the particular conditions, the isolated specimens of the other species generated within the old species rapidly multiply and are capable under these conditions of extruding the species which gave them birth. If this goes on in free nature the emergent species will rapidly multiply and completely oust from the habitat the species that gave rise to it.

This is describing how the environment effects heritable traits, the inheritance of acquired traits. The wheat thing is a hypothesis to support it. That was wrong. Other experiments have been performed since that prove some of these ideas. They weren't done with that intention or using the same vocabulary so its not immediately obvious and you could interpret it differently if you deliberately limit the scope of its application to the terms or situation used instead of looking at the big picture.
>>

 No.221286

>>221216
Lamarck agreed with Darwin in principle, they just had different mechanisms.
https://web.archive.org/web/20001012042617/http://www.textbookleague.org/54marck.htm

>Lamarck's idea about giraffes – that their necks grew longer as they stretched for distant leaves, and that their elongated necks were inherited by their offspring – has been cited and illustrated in one schoolbook after another, to the point of utter tedium. A passage about giraffes really does occur in Lamarck's writings, but the schoolbook-writers obviously have not looked at it. Instead they have seized upon an addled version of the giraffe scenario, and they have been recycling that version for decades. They present it in a highly misleading way, and they don't tell that the giraffe scenario is merely a hypothetical example of how a Lamarckian "mechanism" might work – not an example of something that has actually been studied scientifically. They also fail to tell that Lamarck's notion about giraffes, like all his evolutionary speculations, involved the mystical principle of progress toward "perfection."


>All of these misrepresentations of Lamarck form part of a bigger folly: Textbooks pit Lamarck against Darwin in a mythical contest from which Darwin emerges victorious. To perpetuate that myth, the textbook-writers lead students to believe that Lamarck embraced the inheritance of acquired characteristics, that Darwin rejected it, and that this was the crucial difference between the two men's ideas about evolution.


>None of that is true. First, Lamarck adopted the inheritance of acquired characteristics as an assumption; he needed that assumption to make some of his imagined mechanisms work, but it was an assumption about heredity, not about evolution. Second, Darwin accepted the inheritance of acquired characteristics, just as Lamarck did, and Darwin even thought that there was some experimental evidence to support it. In a book published in 1868, The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, Darwin presented the "pangenesis" hypothesis to explain how the inheritance of acquired characteristics might operate: All the parts of an organism's body threw off little corpuscles that were collected in the organism's reproductive system and then were passed on to the organism's offspring. (This idea did not originate with Darwin; similar concepts had been published before.)
>>

 No.221300

>>221172
> I don't think wheat turned into rye in the field
he didn’t say wheat turned to rye. you keep pulling shit out of your ass. he was talking about the winter and summer species of wheat, all he said is that it can be hybridized with rye.
you’re so stupid thinking that typing a lot of words makes you so smart.
>>

 No.221334

>>216243
Not sure, but there has definitely been studies on DNA methylation (one of the mechanisms behind epigenetics) and how epigenetics play in generational obesity.
>>

 No.221368

File: 1620157450492.jpg (135.89 KB, 863x1300, 15205055-wheat-spikes.jpg)

>>221300
>Legitimate doubts were always voiced. It was not established whether or not the prime cause of this adulteration was ordinary mechanical admixture so frequently met with. There was no assurance that the original seeds really did not contain an admixture of a few seeds of another species, or that seeds of another species had not been carried to the sown field in question by water, wind, birds or some other agency; nor could one be sure that seeds of the admixed breed had not been in the soil of that field for a long period of time, etc.

>This explains why it was impossible to prove by facts relating to the past that the emergence of one plant species from another species might also be an original source of the various crop admixtures and adulterations, besides their frequent introduction into crops by mechanical means.


>All the enumerated objections to the idea of one species giving rise to another become invalid in the cases referred to by us. Individual grains of rye discovered in spikes of wheat which had grown for several generations under definite conditions could not possibly have been introduced into these spikes from without by either birds or man or in any other way.


>These grains of rye were generated by wheat plants and developed in spikes of wheat.


>The supposition that these seeds might be of hybrid origin also goes by the board. It is a known fact that wheat can be crossed with rye, though seldom. However, in these cases the product obtained is an obvious rye-wheat hybrid which can readily be distinguished from wheat and rye by its external appearance.


>Besides, rye-wheat hybrids, as a rule, are self-sterile; they yield no seeds unless they are pollinated with the pollen of one of their parents, preferably the wheat. In the case at hand the grains of rye from the wheat spikes produced ordinary rye plants with normal fertility. The said plants manifested no hybrid properties whatever.


>For example, a single species, durum wheat (Triticum durum) can produce both soft wheat (T. vulgare) and rye (Secae cereale).


>There was no assurance that the original seeds really did not contain an admixture of a few seeds of another species, or that seeds of another species had not been carried to the sown field in question by water, wind, birds or some other agency; nor could one be sure that seeds of the admixed breed had not been in the soil of that field for a long period of time, etc.


>The above examples of the generation of particular plant species by others are particularly valuable because analogous cases may be observed any year in suitable fields. Similar results may likewise be obtained by cultivating plants specially sown under experimental conditions for this purpose.


>Some weed species have long been introduced into cultivation. Rye, for instance, begotten under certain conditions by wheat, is under these conditions a pernicious weed which drives the wheat from the field. In such districts special measures are therefore taken–crop weeding, sorting wheat seeds from rye seeds–to protect wheat at all times from extrusion by rye. In other districts, on the contrary, rye has long been a cultivated plant.


tl;dr
When you get rye in your wheat field, the wheat literally transforms into rye, and you can harvest the spikes, stalk attached, and ship them to a lab, and when you look under a microscope there is rye seed growing from wheat stalks. Then when you plant these seeds that you obtained from wheat plants, they grow into rye plants that are not hybrids. This is not because you accidentally mixed rye seed in your wheat seed during planting and they are actually rye plants, its not because someone was being sneaky and glued rye on to your wheat, its because the rye that was present in between the wheat rows was absorbed by the wheat and took it over because it was more fit for the environment.
t. Lysenko
>>

 No.221371

>>221368
he’s talking about hybrid plants. learn to read
>>

 No.221390

>>221216
>nature vs nurture
it really is though. Mendelian genetics as it was originally conceived was unipolar and deterministic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
>The phrase in its modern sense was popularized by the Victorian polymath Francis Galton, the modern founder of eugenics and behavioral genetics when he was discussing the influence of heredity and environment on social advancement.[5][6][7] Galton was influenced by On the Origin of Species written by his half-cousin, the evolutionist Charles Darwin.

> These two conflicting approaches to human development were at the core of an ideological dispute over research agendas throughout the second half of the 20th century. As both "nature" and "nurture" factors were found to contribute substantially, often in an inextricable manner, such views were seen as naive or outdated by most scholars of human development by the 21st-century.[8][9][10][11][12]


>The strong dichotomy of nature versus nurture has thus been claimed to have limited relevance in some fields of research. Close feedback loops have been found in which nature and nurture influence one another constantly, as seen in self-domestication. In ecology and behavioral genetics, researchers think nurture has an essential influence on nature.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism
>Biological determinism, also known as genetic determinism,[1] is the belief that human behaviour is directly controlled by an individual's genes or some component of their physiology, generally at the expense of the role of the environment, whether in embryonic development or in learning.[2] Genetic reductionism is a similar concept, but it is distinct from genetic determinism in that the former refers to the level of understanding, while the latter refers to the supposedly causal role of genes.[3] Biological determinism has been associated with movements in science and society including eugenics, scientific racism, and the debates around the heritability of IQ,[4] the basis of sexual orientation,[5] and sociobiology.[6]

>In 1892, the German evolutionary biologist August Weismann proposed in his germ plasm theory that heritable information is transmitted only via germ cells, which he thought contained determinants (genes). The English polymath Francis Galton, supposing that undesirable traits such as club foot and criminality were inherited, advocated eugenics, aiming to prevent supposedly defective people from breeding. American physician Samuel George Morton and the French physician Paul Broca attempted to relate the cranial capacity (internal skull volume) to skin colour, intending to show that white people were superior. Other workers such as the American psychologists H. H. Goddard and Robert Yerkes attempted to measure people's intelligence and to show that the resulting scores were heritable, again to demonstrate the supposed superiority of people with white skin.[4]


>Galton popularized the phrase nature and nurture, later often used to characterize the heated debate over whether genes or the environment determined human behavior. Scientists such as ecologists[7] and behavioural geneticists[8] now see it as obvious that both factors are essential, and that they are intertwined, especially through the mechanisms of epigenetics.[9]
>>

 No.221395

>>221371
<learn to read
please
>The supposition that these seeds might be of hybrid origin also goes by the board. It is a known fact that wheat can be crossed with rye, though seldom. However, in these cases the product obtained is an obvious rye-wheat hybrid which can readily be distinguished from wheat and rye by its external appearance.

>Besides, rye-wheat hybrids, as a rule, are self-sterile; they yield no seeds unless they are pollinated with the pollen of one of their parents, preferably the wheat. In the case at hand the grains of rye from the wheat spikes produced ordinary rye plants with normal fertility. The said plants manifested no hybrid properties whatever.
>>

 No.221407

>>221395
At this point, this is just sad. He is in denial.
>>

 No.221424

>>221283
Coming up with a way to make your theory look dialectical is neat but doesn't prove you right.
>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.
Is Lysenko claiming that random mutations couldn't possibly lead to qualitative changes or am I misreading this?
>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.
But Interspecific competition is a real and observable fact. Malthus and his theories about feudal economics have no bearing on nature.
>A change in the environmental conditions essential to the specific nature of the particular organisms sooner or later changes this specificity perforce–certain species originate other species. Under the influence of the changed conditions, which have become deleterious to the natures (heredities) of the organisms of the plant species growing here, rudiments of bodies of other species more fit for the changed environmental conditions arise and take shape in the bodies of the organisms constituting these species. Such qualitative heterogenity in the body of a plant organism which is characteristic of various other species may in some cases be detected even by the naked eye.
>The appearance under the influence of suitable environmental conditions of specific qualitative heterogeneity in the bodies of plants explains the often repeated creation of some species by others that have long been in existence. When plants of a particular species somehow or other come under the influence of conditions relatively unfavourable for the normal development of the peculiar features of their species, enforced alteration takes place, and rudiments of another species with peculiar features, more in accordance with the new environmental conditions, appear in the plant organisms of that particular species. As they are more responsive to the particular conditions, the isolated specimens of the other species generated within the old species rapidly multiply and are capable under these conditions of extruding the species which gave them birth. If this goes on in free nature the emergent species will rapidly multiply and completely oust from the habitat the species that gave rise to it.
I am getting some platonic realm of forms vibes from this. He makes it sound like organisms have some sort of collective memory of different forms they can take and the ability to 'decide' which forms their offspring will have. I don't see how this negates my earlier statement that Lysenko denies Natural Selection.
>>

 No.221432

>>221286
I already knew that Darwin assumed that some Lamarckian concepts are right. Didn't know the part about Lamarck tho. First time I learned something new in this hellhole of a thread
>>

 No.221442

>>221424
>intraspecific
>Interspecific
>>

 No.221448

File: 1620158760358.jpg (42.52 KB, 667x375, 219.jpg)


>he doesn't know about morphogenetic resonance
>>

 No.221473

>>221448
6/10 bait
got me to look it up
>>

 No.221501

>>221442
I misread that. But the same also goes for intraspecific competition
>>

 No.221527

Time for the infodumps again:
Read: http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/lysenko.html
Also: https://webs.ucm.es/info/nomadas/trip/lysenko.html (was deleted), so use this link https://web.archive.org/web/20190111001548/https://webs.ucm.es/info/nomadas/trip/lysenko.html

A short summary: http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/ly-tl-cv.html

>IN SHORT: The Three Main Bones of Contention regarding the things TD Lysenko REALLY said (these are given in greater detail elsewhere):


>One technical point: back when Lysenko talked about (what we NOW call) cytoplasm - he literally did not use that word and neither did the geneticists. The word they used to refer to ANYTHING that was not the nucleus of the cell was "living protoplasm." They could see little granules fleeting by in the microscope, or corpuscles floating by. They used THESE words. Of course, when I read this, I realize they are all talking about the cytoplasm; so some of those granules Lysenko mentioned DID INDEED carry important factors involved in heredity. Geneticists did claim it was all in the nucleus, not outside the nucleus at all. Also, it was chemists that discovered nucleic acics, NOT the geneticists. Geneticists talked of factors or elements of heredity: genes. Mitochondria also has genes, but they are not human genes, they are bacterial DNA!, yet they drive ALL OUR metabolism. These mitochondria are NOT in the nucleus of the cell! This is a technicality over which some might quibble.


>1. Geneticists insisted that heredity was carried forth exclusively by what is inside the nucleus of a cell (chromosomes) and that the rest of what is in the cytoplasm of the cell was just junk. This was called the "Chromosome Theory of Heredity." Lysenko did deny the THEORY, but he never denied the importance of chromosomes. DNA was not known of in the 1930's. Lysenko did NOT dispute that heredity was carried forth by chromosomes, but he insisted that the WHOLE of the cell, CYTOPLASM and all, was involved in the heredity process. Lysenko did NOT reject the importance of CHROMOSOMES, he even counted doubling of chromosomes in plants (as did geneticists). What he objected to was the dogma that "heredity was SOLELY contained in the chromosome." He turned out to be right: a lot of factors of heredity are in the cytoplasm of cells, not located in the nucleus! Geneticists claimed it was ALL contained in the chromosomes which are IN the nucleus. Lysenko disagreed, he was right. Ergo, the geneticists were excessively dogmatic in insisting they were right and declaring this that and the other. The disovery of DNA doesn't change this: Mitochondrial DNA, having the DNA of a bacterium, is in the CYTOPLASM of cells, not in nucleus. Without that, the rest wouldn't even work! For Mitochondria and how the discovery of how this evolved and works, see Lynn Margulis's works.


>2. Geneticists insisted on pure bred lines and claimed these were the best. Lysenko insisted on occasionally mixing the pure lines with wild varieties or else the pure lines would degenerate. Lysenko was 100% right about this. The head geneticist, Vavilov, admitted he was right, but the real battle over this carried on outside of plant breeding, in the realm of racist politics. Prior to this claim, backed by actions with plants, the geneticists had not yet reached the phase where they went "nuts" over what Lysenko said. This claim made them go nuts.


>3. Geneticists insisted that there is strict competition in the survival of the fittest, between species and within one species. Lysenko disagreed with this whole idea of "within one species" (intraspecific) competition and showed that this idea justifies Western Imperialism and exploitation of others by a ruling class (the fittest in the game of survival). He turned out to be right with Margulis topping the cake: she's a Nobel Prize winner. It even turns out that there is far less competition between species than had been theorized before. This phase got the geneticists to claim Lysenko was anti-Darwin and the battle raged on anew.


>Lysenko NEVER said that variations occur, changes in heredity occur, due to "use" and "disuse" of various organs. He NEVER said that. He was not a Larmarckian, knew what Larmarckism was, explained it and explained why it was wrong! He said changes were due to assimilation and dissimilation and focused on the metabolism and natural selection. Today, "assimilation" is known about and called GENETIC assimilation. Yet one doesn't have to know what a gene is to understand the assimilation. This last thing is part of the dung-heap of nonsense put into Lysenko's mouth by his enemies. They un-explain what he said, they MAKE IT into something stupid and then call it Larmarckian.


>The rest of the nonsense they claim Lysenko said is either pure lies or they take puns and jokes he made and pretend he was serious. Another dung-heap of slanders they throw at Lysenko have to do with the NKVD.


>What Lysenko was actually saying is very complex. What the geneticists wanted was something very simple-minded and Mendelian. Well, things are not simple and MOST things do not abide by the Mendelian 3:1 at all. What Lysenko discovered about vernalization was not known before and has turned out to be VERY important, it was not simple at all. Cold slows growth of a plant, but it makes the plant vernalize which then sets off a new DEVELOPMENT in the plant; ergo vernalization can't be growth: it's development which is something different. He used a very high reasoning on this. His phasic theory of development was also very heavy, not simple at all. Those who mock it out or try to ridicule him did NOT understand it at all, they are simple-minded and stupid. And they are liars that have only the desire to ridicule this man BECAUSE he was strongly Marxist and Stalinist.
>>

 No.221548

File: 1620160764234.jpg (27.16 KB, 330x444, ngyGxEunCO_ummnK0fmsDqFMBM….jpg)

>One other thing, those MORON genetics advocates would accuse TD Lysenko of imagining that "if you train a horse to run, it's offspring will be able to also run," as if to imply that Lysenko thought that the mere training of the horse would be passed down to its offspring. They make it sound that way. Then, as if we are all morons too, they go on to tell us that you have to "breed" horses that run good. DUH, that's exactly what Lysenko WAS DOING, eg, with cows, and mostly with plants. In case no one noticed: this IS manipulation of the ENVIRONMENT and of nature. It is DIRECTLY manipulating it. It doesn't matter if the "technical explanation" of what you are doing is genetic or not. Two plants that normally would NOT be in the same environment or breed with each other: TAKE THEM and BREED THEM. This IS manipulation of the environment: trying to get a result that is beneficial to man. That is what Lysenko was DOing, it was what Michurin SAID to do: practical things like this. Vernalization was also a direct manipulation of the environment - but the genetic theorists demanded that Lysenko provide them with a THEORY about why and how vernalization works. UGH. It turns out that the explanation involves EPI-genetic inheritance which was only JUST RECENTLY discovered. Today, geneticists would try to deceive people into believing that "crossing genes of a cat with those of a dog" is the same as animal breeding since both involve "genes blending." HOLD ON. It's NOT the same. The products of such genetic manipulation, not having evolved thru a long series of mutations in nature and BY NATURAL MEANS, would not be FIT to exist in ANY environment: because if they were fit or NATURALLY able to blend or be blended directly by animal breeders, we'd SEE cat/dogs as a type of animal right now. Dogs and cats are NOT cross-fertile. But they can be MADE to cross thru genetic manipulation and bioengineering. So what good is this for man?

>One of the most IMPORTANT things PRO MAN is Preventive Medicine which is only a baby science in the capitalist countries. Preventive Medicine threatens PROFITS made by doctors and hospitals (including the American Cancer Society) from the SICKNESSES of people. They'd be out of business if people were able to PREVENT most sicknesses! That's what the Marxists have said. MORONS don't seem to grasp it. WHY NOT? What do THEY PAY for health insurance or for doctor's visits or visits to specialists, or a hospital stay of one day? That should give them an "in the flesh" clue, but it doesn't.


>Lysenko, prior to 1936, never contrived for power. But in 1936 he arose against the geneticists, and they rose up against him also, even trying to involve the Central Committee when Vavilov was the pet of the party. This was due exclusively to the Lysenko group GETTING practical results and needing funding for practical tools coming up against the genetic or Vavilov group that was trying to divert funding to their side for theoretical research, Vavilov himself having written so huge an amount of literature that NO ONE in one lifetime could have read it - with NOT ONE THING in there being put to practical use. Vavilov was criticized by the OGPU in the late 1920's for doing this, collecting seeds and doing NOTHING with them; it is also known that some of the samples Vavilov paid for in Soviet gold and brought back were samples that the Czarist Russians sold TO foreigners from whom Vavilov got these "new" samples. He was criticized for this, but not jailed or put on trial. This was never disputed, not even in 1948. It was also well known in the USSR! Lysenko's group had RESULTS, the geneticists had nothing but theories. In the TDL-NKVD expose we tried to show just what it is genetics HAS given us (nothing), but herein is another bombshell.


>First off: Yarovizatsya (Lysenko's own journal), 1937, No 2, p. 15 states: "The discussion here is about securing the further development of geneticists from the point of view of development, securing the development of genetics as a science in place of converting genetics into a service of Goebbles. Only this will make it possible to convert such science into the highest stage which, at the moment, is in its primary stages of development. Only this will make is possible for our geneticists to earn respect of all the progressive scientists in the world. For the sake of clarity we repeat that Darwinism is not against genetics. Darwinism is for genetics. Darwinism is not against genetics but Darwinism is against fascist distortion of genetics and the fascist utilization of genetics in its political aims that are detrimental to the progress of humanity."


>There is it, from the horse's mouth. It refutes the LIES told about Lysenko.


>Now, for the bombshell: during Khrushchev's time Lysenko proposed that the funds allotted for the development of the virgin soil be used instead in the traditional Russian regions towards the fertilization of soil and thus the increase of crop production; the development of the virgin soil was to be left for grazing purposes of livestock until such time as concrete agrotechnical methods could be developed for these regions. HE WARNED that the Khrushchev adventurism would yield several crops and then would result in soil erosion and dust storms! It was precisely for this reason that he was dismissed from his office as president of VASHKhNIL. And what he said would happen to the virgin soil - is exactly what happened! Letter to Khrushchev from Lysenko was gotten from archives tho it is well known that Lysenko was always dead set against any kind of corn crops. There is no corn belt in the USSR.


>Zhores Medvedev, however, in his scathing book of bullshit, wrote that geneticists began an open struggle against Lysenko and that they wrote about 300 letters against him. There is no mention in Medvedev's book about Lysenko being against Khrushchev's adventures to upturn the virgin soil and that it was precisely this that had predetermined the "courage" of the geneticists, as Medvedev would have it. He lies by omission of VITAL information. And just WHO was it that was in favor of Khrushchev's virgin soil adventure that ruined the land? Why, one of them is well known for it! Shmalthausen, together with Zavadovski, Zhukovsky and others - notably those that got into trouble after Lysenko was given power to do his practical works in 1948! So then, as soon as these formerly denounced geneticists got the upper hand, they went in with Khrushchev on the virgin soil and corn and popcorn program that ruined the land! Medvedev DOES NOT mention this, or, ha ha ha, GIVE THEM CREDIT for it.


>There are those who call themselves scientists that produce nothing and that come up with bogus adventures (such as the cytoplasmic sterility corn fiasco in Texas for which not one geneticist got punished but for which many farmers and their children lost their homes and livelihoods). These types of scientists do NOT produce material wealth or betterment of material being. Instead, they loot it and stick it in their heads and in their books and publications for others of their kind, lice, to read and fawn over. Before Stalin's death, before Beria's assassination, before Lysenko's dismissal and later retirement, the government undertook measures of sorts to FORCE this army of lice to mentally create some kind of wealth to compensate for people's losses. The Vavilov victory (of sorts) only freed the "scholars" from performing practical undertakings. Yes, the "world" agrees (including the capitalist world which was out to bury the USSR from the start), they all agree that these parasites are "scholars" "promoting science." And it appears that there are many FOOLS that were in government after Stalin. The government gave them a livelihood but did they really serve science? Well, they surely determined "what science is supposed to be." Ahem.


>You see, the kolkhoz director would be punished if he produced roses instead of wheat. The worker was punished if he produced waste and not a working product. But these scientific scholarly parasites insisted that, in science, negative results are results nonetheless, despite being of NO benefit to anyone! But was it a LOSS to anyone? YES! It costs a LOT to produce such experiments, negative or not! The titles were awarded NOT to those who benefitted from the scientist's results (which would make sense) but on the scientists themselves. Another masterpiece of state idiocy. That's like paying a fortune for a car that doesn't work: oh, it's STILL a car, duh.


>Why did Lysenko rise? It's easy to explain: he produced EATABLE results, lots and lots of it. Why did he fall in 1956? Because he was dead set against Khrushchev's corn/popcorn-virgin soil idiocy. Sure, Khrushchev ran to him again later when the disaster was obvious, but it was too late. One can not, no one has figured out how to, FIX destroyed, eroded land.


>Lysenko's problem was that he had to increase numbers as well as meet deadlines. This was a problem that seemed unachievable to the petrified Vavilov. Lysenko tried to solve the problem because its solution was essential to the people. No one was able to fulfill quotas 100%, but agricultural productivity under Lysenko grew steadily and these were his priorities: to increase production of grain and livestock. His priorities were NOT to simultaneously increase scientific accountability and conferences. Because he DID do what he set out to do (as shown by Richard Lewontin's statistics) he rose.


>One must remember also, the theory of genetics back then, the fact that the "gene" was almost a hypnotic entity like the soul. "Something" may carry heredity forth, but the exactness and methods were unknown and there is STILL debate on this today with L. Margulies turning the whole Darwinian paradigm on its head with her proofs. One must remember the hysteria over the concept of pure lines (read pure races) and this was not just in Hitler's Germany. The only things that really DO work along Mendelian lines of 3:1 are DISEASES! Genes that are deleterious work that way. Technically, there IS a gene for a smooth pea; but there is NO gene for a wrinkled pea. What produces the wrinkled pea is a MISSING GENE. Mendel set out to disprove Darwin; few know this tho there is LOTS of literature about it in technical journals. It should be obvious to anyone that GRASPS what evolution really IS that nothing is immutable - if it were, there'd be no evolution (which is what Mendel tried to prove). Botanists, above all, know that this 3:1 doesn't work out. Kamin, among others, proved Mendel was a fraud!


>Most recent rehash of the whole Mendel fiasco (only Mendel, no one else) can be found in the article: "Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin" by B. E. Bishop in the JOURNAL OF HEREDITY, 1996; 87; 205-213. 0022-1503/96/$5.00 Return to index of pro-Lysenko articles.
>>

 No.221554

ты лысенко, не робей, сознавайся что еврей!
>>

 No.221557

>>221371
Bro just accept that Lysenko was wrong on the wheat shit it's not that hard.
>>

 No.221948

>>221548
The fact that Lysenko actually did his job every now and then doesn't absolve him from being a fraud. Him being right about some things doesn't change that a majority of his 'experiments' were made up nonsense.
It also looks like you lack any understanding of how science works as shown by
>There are those who call themselves scientists that produce nothing and that come up with bogus adventures (such as the cytoplasmic sterility corn fiasco in Texas for which not one geneticist got punished but for which many farmers and their children lost their homes and livelihoods). These types of scientists do NOT produce material wealth or betterment of material being. Instead, they loot it and stick it in their heads and in their books and publications for others of their kind, lice, to read and fawn over. Before Stalin's death, before Beria's assassination, before Lysenko's dismissal and later retirement, the government undertook measures of sorts to FORCE this army of lice to mentally create some kind of wealth to compensate for people's losses. The Vavilov victory (of sorts) only freed the "scholars" from performing practical undertakings. Yes, the "world" agrees (including the capitalist world which was out to bury the USSR from the start), they all agree that these parasites are "scholars" "promoting science." And it appears that there are many FOOLS that were in government after Stalin. The government gave them a livelihood but did they really serve science? Well, they surely determined "what science is supposed to be." Ahem.

>You see, the kolkhoz director would be punished if he produced roses instead of wheat. The worker was punished if he produced waste and not a working product. But these scientific scholarly parasites insisted that, in science, negative results are results nonetheless, despite being of NO benefit to anyone! But was it a LOSS to anyone? YES! It costs a LOT to produce such experiments, negative or not! The titles were awarded NOT to those who benefitted from the scientist's results (which would make sense) but on the scientists themselves. Another masterpiece of state idiocy. That's like paying a fortune for a car that doesn't work: oh, it's STILL a car, duh.

The greatest scientific discoveries mankind has seen were not brought about singlehandedly by great men but by decades of experimentation and documentation in various fields slowly leading to the formation of databanks allowing later researchers to synthesise the collective knowledge of prior generations into new models and ideas. Failure is a necessary part of this and to punish scientists for negative results would be dangerous. It is sad that you reject this collectivist view of science for an individualist great man 'get shit done' approach which is ideologically similar to the logic of the ruling class. I am not trying to deny that under capitalism the Intelligentsia is a generally reactionary class but rejecting their scientific methodology because of this is the same as rejecting units of measurement as capitalist propaganda.
Inb4
>NOOO! ALL OF LYSENKOS EXPERIMENTS WERE 100% HECKIN VALID! THEY JUST CAN'T BE REPLICATED BECAUSE ALL MODERN SCIENTISTS ARE BADFAITH BUGMEN AND NOT GREAT MAN HISTORY MOVERS LIKE LYSENKERINO!!!
>>

 No.222553

>>221948
>corn defender has logged on
>>

 No.222767

Miss him yet?
>>

 No.222825

>>219905
Your cells undergo mutation over your lifespan, yes. Not really so much "evolution," in all likelihood.
>>

 No.223061

>>221948
Look at idpol debate in the West with scientists pushing forward outright bullshit.
>>

 No.223193

>>222553
>>223061
>Someone else is wrong which must mean I am right
Imagine being this cucked by binary burger thinking
>>

 No.225014

File: 1620254975431.jpg (21.25 KB, 250x252, lysenko.jpg)

>>

 No.225682

>>221172
>genes are metaphysical and inheritance is environmental
What the actual fuck does any of this mean?
>and the idea that its "both" in relation to each other is taken from my perspective to be enough alone to prove that evolution is dialectic and Lysenko was right
Every organism is a set of genes expressed in an environment. All that other shit you read into it does not follow logically.
>The nature vs nurture debate is over and the environment won, because the nature side was arguing that nurture has NO EFFECT AT ALL
t. illiterate haz fan
>>

 No.225749

>>225682
>What the actual fuck does any of this mean?

It means you can take two sheep with desired traits and breed a desired third one. That's how agrarian and animal husbandry selection works. Fixed randomness of "genes", as postured by mendelian half-brain geneticists, doesn't exist in reality.
>>

 No.225757

>>225749
>Fixed randomness of "genes", as postured by mendelian half-brain geneticists, doesn't exist in reality.
Google 'regression to the mean', brainlet
>>

 No.225848

File: 1620285968918.jpg (37.14 KB, 500x500, artworks-000430799694-d0xf….jpg)


Unique IPs: 24

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / cytube] [ leftypol / b / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta ] [ GET / ref]