[ 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[Last 50 Posts]

Was he right bros? If so, elaborate. If not, elaborate.
>>

 No.199964

He was wrong you fag.
>>

 No.199971

>>199950
I've read nothing but he's very hot
>>

 No.199974

He was a mistake not just as a pick for some office but as a person. Low effort OP. What are your thoughts, (((bro)))?
>>

 No.199979

70/30
>>

 No.199983

>>199974
elaborate
>>

 No.199986

File: 1619683695160.pdf (4.98 MB, 67x118, Sovetskoe_nauchnoe_soobsch….pdf)

>>199974
>He was a mistake not just as a pick for some office but as a person.
Nah, he was more or less exactly like most other scientists at that time. Big chunk of the scientific community in the USSR was ingerited from tsarist times, so using your political influence to get rid of your opponent was very common, Vavilov wasn't a innocent victim either on that front. Took some time and a bit of repressions to get them in order. Before late '30 party gave those scientists a bit too much freedom (including financial one too) and a lot of them used it not to make research done, but to boost their status and profit themself from government research funds. In the period of '18-34 there were only like 6% of scientists and technical specialist who were party members.

There is a very good analysis about the scientific community of the USSR of that period. It's in russian though.
>>

 No.199987

Lysenko did have an actual problem separating science and politics when it was needed (Stalin criticized him) and he denied Mendelian inheritance but did not deny evolution or Darwinism or anything like that. I can't bring myself to be too mad at him for this because within the European scientific community of that time there were fierce debates that somewhat mimick the calculation debate, with Malthusian fascists arguing against Soviet biologists. One of the biggest contributions to agricultural science from Lysenko was vernalization.
>>

 No.199998

>>199950
I mean, he was vindicated in a sense just google epigenetics.
>>

 No.199999

the problem with isn't that his theories were wrong, that's pretty normal thing in science, but his theories became an official soviet narrative on genetics and anyone with slightly different opinion was viewed nearly as a fascist and eugenicist. Lysenkovschina slowed down soviet biology and harmed the reputation of soviet science, that's why it was a bad thing
>>

 No.200076

>>199999
Quints to put the Infrasoys on suicide watch
>>

 No.200146

There was a thorough discussion on this on bunkerchan several months ago.
>>

 No.200147

>>199950
in abstract yes on Mendelian genetics being accurate
in specifics with the alternatives he provided no, but he did incidentally discover a few correct things even while being wrong
>>

 No.200802

>>200146
is there a link to this
>>

 No.210202

>>

 No.210282

He was right and Infrared is Rising.
>>

 No.210505

>>199950
Lysenko was doing practical work while his enemies were sucking up govt research grants, and Vavilov was travelling the world with his son to "collect botany samples" that bore no use to Soviet agriculture at the time. Party asked scientists to develop better agricultural technologies, and out of them all Lysenko showed best results. All the shit that is claimed as not working, is actually used today. Just take every claim retards make (except genetics, it doesn't matter because it wasn't Lysenko's filed of study to begin with), and you'll immediately find that Lysenko's methods are used to this day. Also, Soviet Transformation of Nature, projects that was replaced with Virgin Lands (a failed policy Lysenko was protesting), was developed with Lysenko's participation. It included digging irrigation channels, greening deserts by planting various plants and trees in specific order, pest control, soil enrichment, etc
>>

 No.210517

>>199950
Yes. Genes aren't real.
>>

 No.210527

>>199950
I admittedly don't know much about genetics beyond the basics, but I hear that Lysenko was at least partially vindicated with the modern theory of epigenetics. Again though I heard this offhand from a source that seemed knowledgeable, but may not have been in any case.
>>

 No.210536

File: 1620010083187.jpg (10.25 KB, 426x639, 1615267042957.jpg)

Why yes, I am against Mendelian inheritance. How could you tell?
>>

 No.210711

File: 1620012317705.pdf (4.03 MB, 67x118, LysenkoIsRight.pdf)

>>199950
Didn't know I saved this from somewhere
>>

 No.210751

>>199950
All I want is my plants to live in beautiful soviet harmony.
>>

 No.210781

>>199950
Phill greaves love's him
>>

 No.210831

>>199950
No, he was just describing what we soon discovered to be epigenetics.
>>

 No.210961

>>

 No.210966

>>

 No.210984

File: 1620015722115.jpg (73.49 KB, 450x315, 1-s2.0-S0065266018300075-g….jpg)

>>210961
>working on Capsicum annuum, repeatedly showed that genes for fruit color and fruit position could be transferred by grafting.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0065266018300075

thats fucking wild
>>

 No.210997

>>210961
You probably meant to reply to someone else, since i posted mostly on political side of scientific community in USSR, not about wherever Lysenko's ideas were right or wrong.

Still, it is an intresting article, thank you.
>>

 No.211121

>>210961

>>210984

Is this the magic of the dialectic in motion?
>>

 No.211134

>>210961
Species/taxonomy are a human invention on the cellular level information is constantly being exchanged.
>>

 No.211149

>>210961
Nurseries actually use this to strategically graft genetics of one plant to another to prevent the plants they sell from seeding. This is so that the supply is constrained, all they have to do is have an original ungrafted plant that they strictly control and seed themselves.
>>

 No.211262

>>199998
>epigenetics.
99% of it is a crock of shit
>>

 No.211296

>>210527
>>199998
epigenetics does not vindicate lysenko except in the most tangential way lol
>>

 No.211299

>>211262
Yeah I'm sure a Nazi is a great authority on genetics. Why don't you remove yourself from the gene pool to improve your race, asap.
>>

 No.211320

>>211296
>>211262
Actually this is a new talking point in Far-right race realist circles. They say that modern day cultural Marxists are promoting a new Lysenkoism by rejecting their race "science".
>>

 No.216155

Alright can someone explain to me what Lysenkoism is? People always say that it is Epigenetics but what I heared about Lysenkoism doesn't seem compatible with the modern science of Epigenetics.
>>

 No.216204

>>216155
Lysenkoism is a term coined by butthurt scientists who got shafted by more efficient and class-conscious managers led by Lysenko. As khruschevites took control of the country, they immediately started to repress stalinists and Stalin's appointees. Lysenko was preventing career advances of a lot of people (because they were retards who wanted to travel overseas instead of growing new sorts of grain and developing new agricultural methods), thus they were attacking Lysenko as if he was pseudoscientist. Despite all Lysenko's accomplishments in the field, he got removed by khruschevites to gain support of those careerists, and his policies were undone in favor of failures - like Virgin Lands campaign, like planting fucking corn, all this shit.
>>

 No.216218

>>211320
One of many reasons Lysenko is despised by the bourgeoisie.
>>

 No.216243

doesn't generational human height prove epigenetics?
>>

 No.216277

>>216204
You didn't answer my question. What is the alternative theory presented by Lysenko? I have never gotten a straight answer. You always change the topic to the political climate Lysenko lived in or criticisms of todays biology. Just tell me how you think evolution/genetics work.
>>

 No.216283

>>216277
There is generational inheritance between organisms that isn’t reducible to genetic code
>>

 No.216435

>>216288
>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.

Bruh

>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).


BRUH
Is this some sort of elaborate joke?
>>

 No.216564

>>216435
a reddit spacing urbanite definitely knows what he's talking about when it comes to agronomy
>>

 No.216588

>>216564
Lysenko was wrong. Horribly so. It is not a damnation of the USSR academic achievements, but it did happen. He used political influence to put down his opponents, not that rare of event in capitalistic system either. Instead just autistically screeching about how "epigenetics showed he was right" (it didn't), just own it. Not the end of the world.
>>

 No.216592

>>216588
please demonstrate that he was wrong
>>

 No.216600

>>216592
>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).

Nuff said.
>>

 No.216601

>>216435
>>216588
grafting does cause inheritable alterations in plant species, this is a universally ackownledged fact. Mandelians just have a concocted "gene" explanation that involves genes themselves being transferred between the graft hybrids.
>>

 No.216626

>>216619
Grafting has nothing to do with the quote. Seriously, if you gonna pretend you understand this shit, at least work on your reading comprehension.
>>

 No.216635

>>216626
regardless, I don't see how species evolution is necessarily genetic
>>

 No.216646

>>216564
I'd rather be a reddit spacing urbanite than some brainlet that actually believes that species just randomly turn in to each other lmao
>>

 No.216648

>>216646
he's talking about environmental characteristics i.e. winter wheat and spring wheat. research shows that one is more highly methylated than the other, it is epigenetic.
>>

 No.216659

>>216648
Show me how it can change species in just two or three generations.
>>

 No.216669

>>216659
go vernalize some spring wheat and see for yourself
>>

 No.216677

>>216659
>Wheat quickly assumes new habits of life. The summer and winterkinds were classed by Linnaeus as distinct species; but M. Monnier34 hasproved that the difference between them is only temporary. He sowedwinter-wheat in spring, and out of one hundred plants four alone producedripe seeds; these were sown and resown, and in three years plants werereared which ripened all their seed. Conversely, nearly all the plants raisedfrom summer-wheat, which was sown in autumn, perished from frost; buta few were saved and produced seed, and in three years this summer-variety was converted into a winter-variety. Hence it is not surprising thatwheat soon becomes to a certain extent acclimatised, and that seed broughtfrom distant countries and sown in Europe vegetates at first, or even for aconsiderable period,35 differently from our European varieties.
- Charles Darwin
>>

 No.216684

>>216669
>>216677
There is a specific claim in the quote provided. You can post studies that showed those results any time soon.

Admiting that Lysenko was wrong is not the end of the world. It's not even that bad for USSR, as explained in this post >>199986
>>

 No.216691

>>216684
this is what Darwin cites
>34 Quoted by Godron, 'De FEspece,' added.•vol. ii. p. 74. So it is, according to Getreidearten, with summer and winter barley
wheat changing between species within the span of years was always a known fact.
>>

 No.216696

File: 1620052549045.png (105.56 KB, 356x686, ClipboardImage.png)

>>

 No.216704

>>199998
>I mean, he was vindicated in a sense
No. He outright denied genetic inheritance because of muh ideology.

>just google epigenetics.

Can't sum it up for me? So it's nothing? Ok!
>>

 No.216706

>>216704
>Can't sum it up for me?
inheritance of acquired characteristics
>>

 No.216741

>>216706
Wut? No, it's not.
>>

 No.216744

>>216741
thanks for your helpful educational, enlightening post.
>>

 No.216750

So can anyone of you Lysenkoites give even a shred of evidence that it is possible to turn 28-chromosome durum wheat into 42-chromosome soft wheat? All you have done so far is shift the goal posts
>>

 No.216758

>>199950
God i wish i was THIS Chad
>>

 No.216760

>>216744
Epigenetics is a field fo study about how environment changes your genes' expression. That's way off from what you have said. Seriously, if you gonna go "muh epigenetics" in defense of Lysenko, at least learn what that means.
>>

 No.216777

>>216750
I posted plenty of evidence
>>216760
so environmental changes aren't acquired?
>>

 No.216784

>>216777
>so environmental changes aren't acquired?
Jesus…No, it means that epigenetics doesn't specifically deal with trait inheritance, acquired or not. Your definition shows that you do not understand even basics of evolutionary biology.

By the way, the name for what you describe would be "lamarckism".
>>

 No.216790

>>216784
>No, it means that epigenetics doesn't specifically deal with trait inheritance, acquired or not
the only way this would be true is if gene expression aren't traits, and environmental changes aren't acquired and inherited. you're just contradicting me for no reason to make a non-point.
>>

 No.216819

Lysenko was retarded lmao
>>

 No.216824

>>216790
Not every change in gene expression due to environment or behaviour becomes something that can be inherited, not everything that can be inherited is studied by epigenetics, not even when we are talking about acquired traits (this one is a bit of a dark territory though, but htere are studies on somatic hypermutation).

It is not wrong to say that some inheritance of acquired traits can be put under purview of epigenetics, but it is wrong to say that about every way of inheritance. It is also wrong to say that everything that epigenetics studies is about iheritance of acquired traits, since most of the time it studies a single organism under different environment.

You just don't know what you are talking about.
>>

 No.216830

>>216777
>I posted plenty of evidence
Lol no and I am starting to suspect that you don't even know what chromosomes are. Otherwise you would realize how ridiculous this claim is.
>>216819
You should read what >>216288 posted. Lysenko wasn't retarded he was utterly insane
>>

 No.216831

>>216824
>It is not wrong to say that some inheritance of acquired traits can be put under purview of epigenetics, but it is wrong to say that about every way of inheritance.
this very fact disproves mendelian inheritance, which posits a single unit of inheritance, which was later attributed to the gene.
>It is also wrong to say that everything that epigenetics studies is about iheritance of acquired traits, since most of the time it studies a single organism under different environment.
you are failing to demonstrate the logic of this statement miserably.
>>

 No.216834

>>216830
>Lol no and I am starting to suspect that you don't even know what chromosomes are. Otherwise you would realize how ridiculous this claim is.
wheat can have different numbers of chromosomes from their parent species. please keep exposing yourself.
>>

 No.216840

>>216831
>this very fact disproves mendelian inheritance,
No one talks about that, you dumb piece of shit.

>you are failing to demonstrate the logic of this statement miserably.

You are failing you reading comprehension test miserably.
>>

 No.216841

>>216834
See how you are deflecting again? I saked about 28-chromosome durum wheat turning into 42-chromosome soft wheat. Can you give me an example of this being true and replicable?
>>

 No.216842

>>216830
>Lysenko wasn't retarded he was utterly insane
Yeah, not only he rejected genetics, he also rejected darwinian evolution.
>>

 No.216857

>>216834
Did you flunk out of high school?
>>

 No.216905

Lysenko gets slandered purely as a defense of eugenics, rather than anything Lysenko actually did. Eugenics was necessary for the whole system of modern liberal society (already becoming not really "liberal"), therefore Lysenko had to be portrayed as nothing less than the Russian Mengele, with the classic fascist false equivalence.

It's really funny because "rejecting Darwinism" meant rejecting a view that came about during Lysenko's career, that was very intentionally an ideological take on evolution so that eugenics could be justified. Said take is more part of the canon of a religion of science than any actual science. There are huge, gaping problems with the modern synthesis, starting from the invention of "epigenetics" to force the genetic theory to make sense.

The legacy of the eugenicists is very much alive today. The maniacs who worked towards the destruction of human society last year are all eugenist fanatics, who have made this insane lockdown policy which hasn't helped anything and is so obviously in place for political control. Eugenics knows that if they lose an inch, the whole system will unravel and rebellious angry mobs will take revenge for a century of eugenics law.
>>

 No.217043

>>216905
>starting from the invention of "epigenetics" to force the genetic theory to make sense
How does your alternative theory of genetics look like?
>>

 No.217066

>>217043
Do not engage him
>>

 No.217075

>>216841
you want me to give an example of wheat offspring having a different number of chromosomes from their parent species? just look it up
>>

 No.217078

>>217066
Don't give the newfags survival tips just let Eugene demolish them
>>

 No.217085

>>216840
nothing you’re saying makes sense then. do you or do you not believe that some evolution persists beyond randomly mutating genes being naturally selected?
>>

 No.217104

can Mendelians just pipe the fuck up on what Lysenko was wrong about specifically, instead of dilly dallying with insults and making vague demands?
>>

 No.217105

>>217075
Please stop using this flag if you gonna behave as dishonest as an average trot.
>>

 No.217114

>>217043
For one, I'd stop treating biology like computer science, which is the latest fetish going around because of mass computerization and digitalization. DNA is not blueprints.
Right now in genetics, correlation is causation, and the only thing you can use DNA analysis for is to find correlations and try to track natural history. It's bizarre pants on head stupidity all around. We're no closer to understanding what a biological cell actually does than we were a century ago, and biology is kept deliberately retarded so that advances in agronomy and medicine are difficult. There is probably no reason why anyone needs to die of heart disease, if we actually treated heart disease properly and understood what the body is doing, but if you did that the life expectancy of commoners would increase, and the powers that be very much do not want that.
>>

 No.217118

>>217105
There were only two studies dedicated to the specific species Lysenko was talking about. But neither of them had a 0% turnover rate on the winter and spring speciation, one simply had a lower percentage rate.
Nobody has honestly tried to replicate Lysenko’s experiments, but the logic of it is not controversial in biology.
>>

 No.217128

>>217118
The logic is very controversial dafuq you talking about?
>>

 No.217131

>>217118
>but the logic of it is not controversial in biology.
Not for someone who learned biology from memes, perhaps.

No evidence, it seems. It only took you a dozen comments to admit.
>>

 No.217137

>>217104
Acquired traits can't be inherited.
>>

 No.217142

>>217128
>The logic is very controversial dafuq you talking about?
please explain how. environmental characteristics being inherited is not controversial. wheat changing between winter and spring species was never controversial even to Darwin. and it's not controversial that vernalization impacts the DNA methylation of wheat.
>>

 No.217145

>>217114
>We're no closer to understanding what a biological cell actually does than we were a century ago
retard. we know a shit ton more about cells than a century ago.
>>

 No.217150

>>217128
it's also not controversial that a wheat of a former species will have a different number of chromosomes than its offspring.
>>

 No.217151

>>217137
Explain → >>211317
>>

 No.217162

>>217142
>>217150
all of these premises are logically consistent with what Lysenko said. the fact that nobody has replicated it doesn't falsify the statement, especially since there's corroboration not even related to Lysenko (Darwin).
>>

 No.217171

Pretty sure that nobody replicating an experiment makes the experiment kinda shitty but ok.

When you do good science, you need to be able to repeat it.
>>

 No.217200

File: 1620062454705.png (101.87 KB, 923x503, lysenkoretard.png)

>>217142
>wheat changing between winter and spring species
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/02/sov-gen.html

Yeah I'm not really seeing many agricultural benefits to this Lysenko shit. The more I dive into it the more it seems to have historically failed.
>>

 No.217260

>>217075
You might be a bit slow but that is no problem I'm stuck in lockdown and have a lot of time.
I want you to prove to me that 28-chromosome durum wheat can turn into 42-chromosome soft wheat. I will keep repeating this question until I get an answer for this specific example that Lysenko gave
>>217114
If it is true that DNA can't function as a blueprint how do you explain the way viruses work? Viruses inject DNA into cells which the cell 'reads' and uses to produce components for new viruses.
>>

 No.217320

>>217137 (me)
Ok, to clarify, some acquired traits can be inherited to a small extent, mainly relating to crud like DNA methylation, yet for the most part classical biology is correct in that species form through natural selection rather than the environment directly editing genes within a single organism's lifespan and then passing on said genes.

There is no natural biological process by which you can turn 28 chromosome wheat into 42 chromosome wheat or vice versa. You'd have to engage in direct genetic modification to accomplish a feat like that. Where the fuck do get get the extra chromosomes in the process of meiosis without having to go through multiple generations and mutation after mutation first?
>>

 No.217324

>>217171
Isn’t WSWS literally Trotskyist?
>>217260
I don’t care. Lysenko simply wasn’t crazy for saying it. The fact that you haven’t seen a secondary example doesn’t prove the contrary. There are other instances of wheat species doing this though:
>>216677
>>216691
Do you know the difference between using Empricial evidence and Logic? Just do the latter, why is this so hard?
>>

 No.217328

I fucked the replies up. But I think you can tell who I’m replying to.
>>

 No.217353

>>217324
Where the fuck do the extra chromosomes come from, dipshit? Does the wheat just think to itself "Damn, the climate's changing. Better edit my genome real quick"? If so, what genetic process is that and does it have any research done into it that isn't 200 year old debunked shit or fradulent.
>>

 No.217356

>>217353
Bitch I don’t know the biochemistry behind it. Sue me.
>>

 No.217361

>>217356
Then I'm inclined to believe that it's all fradulent since nobody's repeated all that Lysenko experimentation crud.
>>

 No.217401

>>217378
The extra chromosomes in some wheat variants comes from hybridization, which is a form of genetic modification. You can't use Lysenko vernalization autism to add chromosomes. That shit doesn't change species and certainly doesn't change chromosome count.
>>

 No.217418

>>217401
Lysenko was specifically talking about hybridized species though. Look at his article
>>

 No.217448

>>217418
Talking about changing from one to another through vernalization which is retarded and has no scientific merit.
>>

 No.217486

>>

 No.217628

>>216648
Shouldn't be called epigenetic seeing as the phenotype change from vernalization is not inheritable
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC520954/
>>

 No.217870

>>216831
>this very fact disproves mendelian inheritance, which posits a single unit of inheritance, which was later attributed to the gene.

yeah, and that is unscientific and incorrect
t. molecular plant biologist
>>

 No.217880

>>216784
>By the way, the name for what you describe would be "lamarckism"

its different, but whoever is saying epigenetics doesn't prove lysenko right is half correct, because the way epigenetics is currently explained/formulated is wrong
>>210711
read the first two chapters, its only like 15-20 pages, the rest is about application in the USSR
>>

 No.217882

>>217448
Lamarckism has no scientific merit?
>>

 No.217904

>>217200
>Yeah I'm not really seeing many agricultural benefits to this Lysenko shit. The more I dive into it the more it seems to have historically failed.

Its a shortcut to creating new hybrids. Modern agriculture relies on pairing random mutated parents. This makes sense under bourgeoisie science where you can just pay millions of dollars to make millions of clones and kill the ones that don't work out. Drug discovery is done in a similarly random, wasteful, unscientific way. This is because the central dogma of biology doesn't allow for it. They think intentional design is impossible and new species are created by UV sun rays cracking DNA, which is retarded. Michurinism is a method of directing inheritance.

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

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

I've actually worked with some of the Burbank plums referenced in "Why Lysenko was right". Luther Burbank was the one who invented hybrid american/japanese plums that modern orchards use. I've also seen it done in Brassicas to increase cold hardiness.
>>

 No.217928

>>217200
Because all you have read about Lysenko are revisionist myths. "Tricks" Lysenko invented: planting parts of potatos instead of entire potato; planting lots of tree seedlings in the steppes to form tree lines that protect the soil from winds; picking up tomatos when they are green and letting them redden in the open. Vernalization worked, scientists were bogus. That said, it isn't used anymore because it's more labor-intensive to vernalize seeds before planting them, it's easier to have a proper breed of seeds.
>>

 No.217935

>>217904
Vernalization makes new hybrids? It's just a phenotype change and isn't inheritable. You have to do selective breeding or cross pollination for those things.

Also didn't Luther Burbank advocate for selective breeding with humans. Not that such things make his hybridization projects of no value, it's just that you should probably take 'em with a grain of salt.
>>

 No.217938

>>217928
Although I'm not sure if those were actually inventions or if Lysenko popularized those things. Tree lines were tested extensively by him, though, as part of the Transformation of Nature plan.
>>

 No.217953

File: 1620072510404.jpg (62.51 KB, 480x600, EK3HOn4XkAITfIQ.jpg)

>>217904
>They think intentional design is impossible and new species are created by UV sun rays cracking DNA, which is retarded
Anon I have no words for how fucking stupid you are. Radiation can lead to mutations although in most cases it causes irreperable damage. I thought this was common knowledge.
>>

 No.217978

>>217938
He invented vernalization which is his main contribution to modern agriculture tbh. He assumed that vernalization meant mendelian genetics was a fraud which didn't turn out to be correct (although recent developments in epigenetics adds a bit of wiggle room).

>They think intentional design is impossible and new species are created by UV sun rays cracking DNA, which is retarded

Don't we literally see bourgeois scientists engaging in direct genetic manipulation, or at least research into said field? We might see a targeted gene drive against mosquitos responsible for malaria sometime in the near future.

Also radiation does indeed cause mutations which can eventually lead to new species forming you're a fucking retard on that point. Incorrect DNA copying can also be a result of mutation so it's not just UV sun rays doing it all.
>>

 No.217983

>>217978 (me)
*cause of mutation, not result of mutation
>>

 No.218185

>>217978
>>217953
Obviously I'm being facetious and reductive, mutation does lead to new species, what I'm saying that the essentialiaty of randomness in evolution is false. Genes aren't real is just a fun meme, of course they are "real" in the sense that they are abstract and arbitrarily categorized sections of matter that have meaning and utility to scientists, but they aren't real in the sense that you can pick one up and show someone(even with an infinitely small microsope and tweezers, its not a question of size).

Under modern biology, "random mutation" is THE bottleneck for evolution, no new genes can be introduced without UV radiation or something analogous. Mating/gene flow/genetic drift/natural selection are all downstream from mutagenesis, there is nothing new for sexual reproduction to mix if there is no random mutation. You can't get a fish from bacteria under the gene model without UV.

You can get fish from bacteria pretty easily if you consider environmental assimilation - aka Michurinism - and you have a general understanding of, for example how wheat is methylated in vernalization, you can develop a model for how calcium is integrated into crustaceans and mollusks in a dialectic relationship with the environment, but this is antithetical to bourgeoisie science, liberalism, individualism, and the whole of western academia.
>>

 No.218201

>>218185
Thats why modern biology is obsessed with individuals and doesn't really understand what a species is, and how you get people who are supposed to know what they are talking about spouting off social darwinism, being completely consumed by survival of the fittest INDIVIDUAL and bitching about 'weak' people that are a drain on society. Its a complete inversion of Darwinism.
>>

 No.218354

File: 1620078637369.jpg (44.98 KB, 349x642, 6kGliTj.jpg)

>>218185
>I-It was just a meme bro
nice cope
>You can't get a fish from bacteria under the gene model without UV
But you literally can. Mutations also happen by accident when DNA is replicated. There is nobody claiming that mutation can only happen with the influence of UV. Why do you feel the need to lie?
>>

 No.218363

>>199964
/thread
>>

 No.218516

File: 1620081602626.png (435 KB, 457x617, anh5tn.png)

>>218354
>Mutations also happen by accident when DNA is replicated.
Hydrolysis is still "random" why are you being pedantic. Are you pretending to be retarded? UV(or ionizing radiation in some cases) is still the primary mechanism for profound evolutionary changes. Flipping a charge is a lot less of a mutation than splitting and combining chains. You don't grow a beak by adding or removing an -OH in one position.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutagenesis#Mechanisms

All of these "environmental mutagens" are cope and are working backwards to fit into genetic theory. They prove Lysenko correct.

>In humans, an average of 60 new mutations are transmitted from parent to offspring. Human males, however, tend to pass on more mutations depending on their age, transmitting an average of two new mutations to their progeny with every additional year of their age.


>but muh giraffes don't inherit necks from stretchy

>ur a lamarck
Strawman and cope. Learn how evolution actually works in practice instead of regurgitating "facts" from a textbook.
>>

 No.218580

>>218516
>In humans, an average of 60 new mutations are transmitted from parent to offspring. Human males, however, tend to pass on more mutations depending on their age, transmitting an average of two new mutations to their progeny with every additional year of their age.
<this proves lysenkoism correct
<and isn't just evidence that meiosis over time is a mutagenic process
>>

 No.218581

>>218516
>More mutations carrying on to offspring with age is proof of Lysenko's theories of species rapidly adapting due to environmental pressures.
Pure, unfiltered cope. You literally agree with most of Mendelian genetics why are we even having this discussion anymore?
>instead of regurgitating "facts" from a textbook
Better to state what the textbooks say than lie, in all honesty.
>>

 No.218598

>>218516
Uf that little reply of mine must have really stung for you to react like this.
>You don't grow a beak by adding or removing an -OH in one position
Unlike your pseudoscience darwinian evolution doesn't claim that species change into one and another after a few generations. It is a process where minor changes that are beneficial for passing on your genes accumulate over time, with each generation being seemingly indistinguishable from the prior one.
Are you American by any chance? I have no other explanation for how you can be this dense.
>>

 No.219391

>>218580
><and isn't just evidence that meiosis over time is a mutagenic process
show me where recombination produces NEW genes
>>218581
>You literally agree with most of Mendelian genetics why are we even having this discussion anymore?
Because the framing is wrong and limiting where it doesn't need to be.
>>218598
>It is a process where minor changes that are beneficial for passing on your genes accumulate over time, with each generation being seemingly indistinguishable from the prior one.
I didn't claim any different.
Mendelian genetics and inheritance explains traits in individuals, it doesn't describe how to intentionally create SPECIES. You are ignoring the scope, frequency, and magnitude of changes that result from different mutagens because genetic theory treats them as the same, because from its perspective with regards to how they effect individuals, they are. But evolution is not about survival of the strongest individual, its about populations. Gene theory starts with the position that inheritance is genetic and works backwards. It brings all the baggage from Christianity that god created the world in 7 days and all the animals are fixed and perfect in the great chain of being and is anti-Darwin.
>>

 No.219404

>>219391
>show me where recombination produces NEW genes

Where do darwinian evolutionary models ever predict that?
>>

 No.219427

>>216831
>>216840
>>217085

>>It is not wrong to say that some inheritance of acquired traits can be put under purview of epigenetics, but it is wrong to say that about every way of inheritance.


<this very fact disproves mendelian inheritance, which posits a single unit of inheritance, which was later attributed to the gene.


I like how you guys just left this out to hang after getting BTFO
>>

 No.219435

>>219391
Recombination doesn't make new genes literally nobody says that. It's DNA replication and radiation that causes the mutations. Genetic recombination and DNA replication are different things.

Are you just pretending to be retarded on that point too?
>But evolution is not about survival of the strongest individual, its about populations
Pretty sure the current consensus is that evolution involves both. The specifics of that would be wish washy Game Theory shit that's beyond me.
>>

 No.219458

>>219427
>implying that Mendelian inheritance with single sets of alleles having simple relations is what we're arguing in favor of instead of defending genetic sciences in general
>implying that non-Mendelian inheritance hasn't been mainstream genetics for decades and that Mendel, as with Lysenko, was working with far less information than we have in modern times and couldn't predict wack shit like Codominant alleles and sex-chromosome dependent alleles.
>implying that epigenetics in any way proves Lysenko's claims that vernalized phenotype changes were inheritable without having to re-vernalize the offspring.
>>

 No.219464

>>219427
>I like how you guys just left this out to hang after getting BTFO
I stopped arguing after i understood that my opponet is complete idiot. His response to me that you referenced just shows his inability to comprehend even basic sentences. Or that he is a complete weasel who has no desire to argue in a good faith.

His definition of epigenetics was absolutely wrong and he either wasn't able to understand why after i explained it to him, or he was trying to misdirect the conversation like he did with the question about weat changing from 28-chromosome to 42-chromosome.
>>

 No.219466

>>219458
This. It's like arguing with "race realists" whose understanding of biology is stuck at around XIX century.
>>

 No.219484

>>219458
>implying that epigenetics in any way proves Lysenko's claims that vernalized phenotype changes were inheritable without having to re-vernalize the offspring.
Not making a claim for or against in this specific instance as such but I wouldn't be surprised if it did for at least a few generations

As an example XY sex selection implies 50/50 male female births yes?

False, severely stress the population and there will be more female than male births and this effect will continue on into the next generations
>>

 No.219512

>>219484
>Not making a claim for or against in this specific instance as such but I wouldn't be surprised if it did for at least a few generations
You should be surprised if it were to happen, since that's not how genetics works. Epigenetics is not strong enough to pull that off in a few generations.
>False, severely stress the population and there will be more female than male births and this effect will continue on into the next generations
>continue on into the next generations
>continue
sigh….
First and foremost that doesn't impact the genetics of the germ cells themselves (sperm, eggs, what have you), only the likelihood of successful fertilization by a sperm cell with varying chromosomes. Does not disprove Mendel, does not disprove Weismann's germ plasm theory (which states that the gonads and their germ cells, rather than somatic cells, determines inheritance), does not BTFO modern genetics or prove Lysenko right. A pro Lysenko argument would involve the germ cells themselves changing in response to the environmental factors. Shit like that does exist due to epigenetics but it's not major and claiming that environmental stresses changing sex ratios persist long after the environmental stressors are gone is retarded.

Also without any environmental factors the ratio is slightly skewed towards men so it's like 51/49 or something.
>>

 No.219568

>>219512
>Also without any environmental factors
wow gee i didn't know that people could exist sans any environment
>>

 No.219577

>>216155
can you please stop calling us "far right"
you can be race realist and leftist, thanks
>>

 No.219591

>>219568
>what is abstraction
>>

 No.219599

>>219512
>First and foremost that doesn't impact the genetics of the germ cells themselves (sperm, eggs, what have you),
Wow that would be really interesting and relevant if we were talking about individuals.

>>219484
> the population

>>219512
>without any environmental factors
lmao

fucking anglos

refer back to >>219391 >>218201
>>

 No.219600

>>219591
bourgeoisie liberal mind tricks
>>

 No.219634

>>219600
>>219599
So much larp…
>>

 No.219639

>>219599
Mechanisms that happen over a multiplicity necessarily act through individual physical acts.
>>

 No.219647

>>

 No.219667

>>217978
>He assumed that vernalization meant mendelian genetics was a fraud

He didn't. He had a healthy scientific attitude towards it that "we just don't know everything yet". He had a proof that genes is not that there is to heredity, yet he was admitting that genes existed.

It's fucking painful to go looking up his speeches or papers, so I won't be proving my words with sources. I may be wrong on that, but that's what I remember I read written by his own pen when I was looking for this stuff the last time.
>>

 No.219682

This whole thread is a good example for why Lysenkoism is a pseudo science similar to race realism or climate change denial. The same way race realists will try to redirect the conversation towards specifics such as sickle cell ammonia case numbers when getting proven wrong about their IQ bs, the Lysenkoists ITT have pretty much given up on the claims made in the first half of this thread after getting btfo and moved on to different arguments. Also there have been multiple posts by Lysenkoists that contradict each other but none of them will address that similar to how there is no internal discussion among climate change deniers about which one of their contradicting theories (not man made/no climate change/global cooling) is correct.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lysenko/works/1950s/new.htm
This text was already posted early on and I would recommend everyone to read it. It describes Lysenkoism in Lysenkos own words and proves that this man was either a liar or delusional.
2/10 thread, I don't agree with Cockshotts take on Hegel but I am beginning to understand why he wants Marxists to read Darwin instead
>>

 No.219745

>>219682
>Hurr durr numbah of chromosomes changed from 28 to 42 lysenko btfo
This actually makes it more interesting since that's a change in ploididity from tetraploid to hexaploid and it's now known that changing the number of chromosomes changes phenotype heritably in the plant kingdom without any actual changes in the genome otherwise and is a comparitively common occurrence

prior to this I was just disagreeing with you because it was funny when you retreated into circular reasoning while pretending to know what you're talking about, but this is full on interesting Lysenko was on to something far earlier than his contemporaries it seems
>>

 No.219773

>>219745
So do you actually believe that the experiment he describes in this text was real and not made up by him? If yes can you give me a source for it being replicated outside of the early USSR?
>>

 No.219849

The thread was about Lysenko being right. You keep insisting he was a fraud and everything was made up instead of admitting that half the shit he was talking about that nobody believed in fact was correct. Having a fit over whether or not the exact terms he used are still the same ones in used in academia today doesn't make him wrong. Should we throw Darwin in the trash over gemmules? I guess atomic theory is wrong now because atoms can be broken down into further parts? What exactly is wrong with that text? Hes arguing almost exactly what I've been describing all thread and I've only read half the book from the top of the thread and his wiki page. I was just about to go on about taxonomy too. Its such an obvious contradiction. Curious.

>>219682
>Marxists to read Darwin instead
that would be a good idea

>>219745
>Lysenko was on to something far earlier than his contemporaries it seems
It really does look like it.
>>

 No.219878

>>

 No.219879

File: 1620113576127.png (477.04 KB, 1452x1304, a5u2wj.png)

>>217486
>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).


based and lysenkopilled
its like I'm reading my self
>>

 No.219884

File: 1620113781483.jpg (55.14 KB, 600x600, swedish_chef.jpg)

>>219879
>He was onto something, he created in his early years an interesting critique of the reductionist Mendelian view of genetics, dominant in the West. Although he (thanks to the West vs East mentality in society) became really dogmatic in his later years.

>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 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."
>>

 No.219898

>>219878
How is the post of >>219577 /pol/? He's arguing that Lysenko is largely correct or at least onto something.
>>

 No.219901

>>219898
mb, meant to type >>219849
>>

 No.219905

File: 1620114706936.jpg (Spoiler Image, 247.84 KB, 1167x1773, vlk.jpg)

>>219639
>Mechanisms that happen over a multiplicity necessarily act through individual physical acts.
Wait a sec, are you trying to say that [spoiler]individuals evolve [/spoiler]?
>>

 No.219906

gottem
>>

 No.219925

>>217486

That first thread is literally this thread all over again. It even has people needling over definitions thinking they are gotchas and repeatedly missing the point.

>Molecular biology is a lot more complex then high school biology.


<Modern science sees nothing of biology as "metaphysical", it is all information encoded on the molecules and atoms that make up nucleic acids.

<The sequence determines the gene

>No, it doesn't always, it can also be determined by the amounts of repeats of a tandem sequence. The sequence itself here is irrelevant but the amount of repeats determines the trait and therefore this is the "gene" of the trait.

>The expression of DNA-sequences can also be determined by solely its location on the chromosome or of the chromosome in the nucleus, which allows it for example to interact with other sequences on the DNA which only then allow its expression. The trait is thus in the end determined by its location and additional sequences on other locations in the genome, what do you call a gene then?

>one; of the sequences?

>But only one of them can't code for the trait
>all; the sequences?
>But these sequences need to be present together at a specific location in order to code and be expressed to create the trait.

>This is what I mean by "metaphysical" it is "something" in the genome (not perse the sequence itself) that determines the trait, we can't pinpoint it exactly. And use the term "gene" in general to ascribe that which determines the trait, it "codes" for the trait. It is a useful term to easily communicate what we are talking about, but useless when we restrict our view of reality by it.


>If single traits or even bio-molecules are determined by multiple combined DNA sequences and other factors, on what is the definition of a 'gene' based then? Why only that part of the sequence? why exclude the promoter and other trans/cis elements located on an other locations? why also not exclude the introns? Don't you see how arbitrary the choice is? It is a remnant of Mendelian Genetics. There is a lot of philosophical debate going on in the molecular biology community about this.


>No legitimate scientist claims a reductionist view of genes determining everything in a linear path from one gene to one trait.


>That was my point, now we mostly reject the MENDELIAN view of genetics and only use it in rare cases, this is also what Lysenko critiqued
>>

 No.220036

>>219879
>>219884
Fuck, Khruschev was an absolute disaster.
>>

 No.220089

>>219773
Alright no one has responded to this in a proper way so I will assume that you all are aware that Lysenko was either lying or delusional. The fact that the conversation has shifted from 'Lysenko was right' to 'Lysenko was on to something' shows that like every common conspiracy nut the moment one of your arguments gets proven wrong, instead of conceding that you were wrong you switch to a different argument and pretend the prior discussion never took place.
>>219879
As I pointed out in >>219682 it is another trade mark of conspiracy nuts that contradicting theories can coexist. The contents of this post seem to 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). If you want to respond to this please provide a source of ideally Lysenkos own writings so I know that you aren't making shit up when you claim that he was on to something.
And for good measure let me ask the same question again:
Is it possible to turn 28-chromosome durum wheat (Triticum durum) into 42-chromosome soft wheat (T. vulgare) within a few generations?
If the answer is yes please provide an example for this experiment being replicated outside of the USSR. If your answer is no but you want to defend Lysenko anyway please explain how he could have come to this conclusion without faking the experiment and/or being comically incompetent.
>>

 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: 61

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