No man has been slandered so much in the history of science. The class enemy and their pseudo-intellectuals pour mud and shit on the man who dared to call a spade a spade - that biology is on firm Marxist-Leninist principles. That we did not create Marxism-Leninism, but that it is Marxism-Leninism that created us. Dialetical materialist understanding of the flora and fauna was forged with Great Darwin’s evolution theory. It was sharpened into a fine blade Engels’ brilliant ‘Part played by labour in the transition from ape to man’. Comrade Lysenko gallantly wielded the Immortal Science and embarked on steppe-wide crusade against scarcity amd famine. And the treat lovers hated him for it, they still do. No, no, no! No abundance of wheat, rice, and corn for the asiatic hordes and the African specimen! How dare they! Funko Pops for me, Famine Poop for thee! By burying Lysenko , and promoting Monsanto debauchery in the fields, by bullying Bohm-deBroglie and promoting the Heisenberg-Bohr mystic mafia in reactors, the Treatlerites secured the Century for themselves. But we must not be afraid. We must uphold the Great Men of Science. As Neruda’s pen truthfully carved: To be Man - that is the Stalinist Law !
268 posts and 43 image replies omitted.>>2499002>the modern understanding of genetics does not refute lysenko. it confirms himany modern proof for wheat randomly turning into rye?
>>2499014>the mainstream view was that novel traits cannot be produced through human interventionSelective breeding has been around for thousands of years. This view was a mainstream as it can get.
>but that species do, not individualsA beneficial mutation doesn't just occur in all members of a species at once, it occurs randomly in individuals. If only there were a way it could be disseminated among the entire population within a couple generations…
>the weismann barrier does not hold>epigeneticsIf you want to debunk the weismann barrier there are better examples than epigenetics. Also epigenetics doesn't create novel traits, it only reactivates previously inactive genes and allows for this reactivation or surpression to be passed on to the offspring. It is very different from both Lysenkoism and Lamarckian evolution.
>lysenko being broadly correctyou can only believe this if you never looked into what his theories actually were
The rest of your post is incoherent rambling, but there is one point that irks me.
>to conclude that inheritance is fundamentally random while remaining philosophically consistent you would have to exclude the possibility of social revolutionMarx was a big fan of Darwin and his theory of evolution by natural selection.
>>2499092>high school biologyThere is a lot of basic stuff you guys don't understand, gotta start somewhere.
>>2499099>Selective breeding has been around for thousands of years.of course but the understanding of how it happens is what was in dispute
>If you want to debunk the weismann barrier there are better examples than epigenetics.i didn't say epigenitics debunks the weismann barrier, i said it doesn't hold, which is true. obviously i am aware of horizontal gene transfer. you need to work on your reading comprehension and stop trying to teach people the basics.
>Marx was a big fan of Darwin and his theory of evolution by natural selection. so was Lysenko. go look up Pangenesis
>>2499100It should have been very easy for you to link the posts that adress this and yet you didn't. Curious.
>>2499102>the understanding of how it happens is what was in disputeIs it? It looks like a very straight forward process to me.
>i didn't say epigenitics debunks the weismann barrierThen don't bring it randomly up in your post if it has nothing to do with the rest of what you wrote
>PangenesisWow, Lysenko was interested in a refuted idea of Darwin, while dismissing his most important contribution. This definitely shines a new light on his stupidity.
>>2499359>y not make effort for meBecause it's a waste of my time and I'm not that invested in this
Here you go
>>2494354 >>2499438That's because no matter how many times it's said you can't comprehend that people are comparing lysenko to
his contemporariesWhich is why entertaining your incoherent babbling is a waste of time
Actually, because I'm not that invested in this I haven't been presenting the best arguments
This is probably the only useful thing to cone out of this thread
>>2499004>>2499635*come
Now that was a wierd autocorrect
>>2499675>the specifics of the mechanism was wrong, but the theory was correctThis only makes sense if you view science as a meta physical debate instead of the discovery of material world. Are you American by any chance? No idea how else you can be this retarded.
>>2499612The process had been already described a decade earlier by a German researcher. The scientific communities of different countries at the time weren't as interconnected as today, so this sort of thing was very common at the time.
>>2499628Lysenko didn't discover it.
>>2499843There are recreatable experiments which verify mendelian genetics and darwinian evolution. Neither theory was outright wrong, just incomplete like every other singular scientific model.
Lysenko claimed he could transmute wheat into rye and called anyone who disagreed a malthusian. Hardly comparable.
>>2500672There are no experiments or observations to prove his theory of evolution. He was either incompetent or a fraud.
>circle jerking about fruit flies This was useful research that advanced the field. Not having the funds yourself to conduct such research is petty reason to reject it.
>>2500707>>2500708you haven't read his work
Unique IPs: 20