[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

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

Not reporting is bourgeois


 

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.

>>2499014
>the impulse of bourgeois science is to do the opposite, to abstract objects and entities and individual parts completely isolated from the whole

This is typical of Western thought as a whole, this mechanical anthropocentric understanding of the world. We as humans make things by assembling them together from smaller objects, so we vainly assume that everything in the entire universe follows this same pattern.


>>2498019
>naught
brit detected

>>2498861
>Why accuse me of secretly having those ideological alignments?
because these people have no real arguments. To them, you have to be a satanic nazi if you've looked at DNA or RNA in a miscroscope. They're just like the Catholic Church holding onto geocentrism and getting mad at Galileo for looking into a telescope. It's especially bizarre how attached they are to an irrelevant figure in a state that no longer exists. Even though the USSR clearly failed, they take the liberal argument that "USSR failed = Socialism Failed" at face value, and therefore defend resolutely everything that came out of the USSR, especially the pre-Khruschev USSR, in the hopes that it will make people "see the light" and "accept socialism." As if it were a matter of defending dead countries and not a matter of fighting for socialism in the real world as it exists today. They're delulu, in short. And the fact that they're literally Abrahamoids accusing you of Satanism when Stalin and Lysenko were militant Atheists makes the irony extra rich.

>>2498998
babbling about "everyone who disagrees with me is a satanist" and presenting zero science is not a "very interesting point." Maybe read a science textbook written in the past 50 years instead of letting these schizos talk you into their mindset.

>>2499002
>this assumptive bullshit is really irritating
bro you (or your side) is literally calling people "Satanic" and crashing out like a bunch of clericalists. Maybe stop projecting.

>>2499072
that guy has some kind of weird third position. he posts about satanists in every thread. im talking about posting high school biology when its besides the point, as if people dont know. might as well start telling us about how mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell. real dunning kruger shit

>>2499002
>the modern understanding of genetics does not refute lysenko. it confirms him
any modern proof for wheat randomly turning into rye?
>>2499014
>the mainstream view was that novel traits cannot be produced through human intervention
Selective breeding has been around for thousands of years. This view was a mainstream as it can get.
>but that species do, not individuals
A 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
>epigenetics
If 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 correct
you 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 revolution
Marx was a big fan of Darwin and his theory of evolution by natural selection.
>>2499092
>high school biology
There is a lot of basic stuff you guys don't understand, gotta start somewhere.

>>2499099
Scroll up your arguments have already been adressed

>>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


>>2499099
>Selective breeding has been around for thousands of years. This view was a mainstream as it can get.

You can't get novel traits that way, you can only get the same traits that occur naturally. You can breed white roses over and over again and eventually get a red rose from random mutation, but you will never get a blue rose.

>>2499161
Stop shitting up threads you retard
You project everything you disagree with on your retard yank conspiracy theorists

>>2499161
IM FULLY EXPECTING IT :D

File: 1759066476097.jpeg (57.54 KB, 728x485, 2jvfml1antrf1.jpeg)

Does anyone know RFK's opinions on Mendelian inheritance?


>>2499227
>>2499255
do not derail the scientific thread please. Thank you.

>>2499100
It 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 dispute
Is it? It looks like a very straight forward process to me.
>i didn't say epigenitics debunks the weismann barrier
Then don't bring it randomly up in your post if it has nothing to do with the rest of what you wrote
>Pangenesis
Wow, 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 me
Because it's a waste of my time and I'm not that invested in this

Here you go >>2494354

>>2499407
every time I press you, it always ends up being schizo babble about everyone you don't like being eugenicists

>>2498749
didn't read+ your idealist lmao

>>2499438
That's because no matter how many times it's said you can't comprehend that people are comparing lysenko to his contemporaries

Which is why entertaining your incoherent babbling is a waste of time

>>2499449
His contemporaries despite their flaws made actual advancement that set us on the right path, Lysenko at best was too incompetent to recognize what hybrid crops are and at worst was a fraud.

>>2499571
And vernalisation?

>>2499612
pre existing set of methods used by Russian peasantry long before Lysenko

>>2499623
And epigenetics?

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

>>2499359
> if it has nothing to do with the rest of what you wrote
>>2499449
>comparing lysenko to his contemporaries
>>2499359
>Lysenko was interested in a refuted idea of Darwin
i said "so was lysenko" as in lysenko was also a fan of darwins theory of evolution. darwin also proposed a mechanism for the inheritance of acquired characteristics. like lysenko the specifics of the mechanism was wrong, but the theory was correct. its getting hard to tell if you cant read or are being deliberately stupid

>>2499675
>the specifics of the mechanism was wrong, but the theory was correct
This 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.
>>2499612
The 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.
>>2499628
Lysenko didn't discover it.

>>2499834
>This only makes sense if
i just dont see why we reject lysenko and uphold others if darwin mendel and wiesmann were equally wrong

>>2499843
Yeap this is the entire contention, everything beyond this is shitposting on my part at least

>>2499843
There 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.

>>2500647
Lysenko was also not outright wrong, just incomplete. Thats another thing you people never consider, why a nation devastated by war that just lost tens of millions of people needs to invest in training up scientists to circle jerking about fruit flies when the people need food and houses. It also wasn't actually him attacking people who disagreed with him but the state and for good reason. If you want to condemn the USSR go ahead it would not be surprising that someone so illiterate would also swallow every anti-communist propaganda without question.

File: 1759133101357.png (499.41 KB, 1080x818, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2499331
>scientific thread

>>2500672
the actual anti communist propaganda about lysenko is "he starved millions." the much more moderate thing he is being criticized for ITT is claiming to turn durham wheat into common wheat in 1 generation through vernalization alone. It is unlikely he was able to do this.

>>2500698
it doesnt really seem like you actually know what he thought

>>2500697
>It is unlikely he was able to do this.
probably because he didnt claim that

>>2500672
There 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
>>2500708
you haven't read his work

>>2500737
I respect your commitment to talk to these idiots

>>2500708
>probably because he didnt claim that
Yeah he did but please move the goalposts for the 10th time. Through Lysenkoism itself, Lysenko's propositions can keep evolving in a Lamarckian fashion even after he dies, to match whatever latest epigenetic discoveries have been made.

>>2501084
>Yeah he did
Source?

Holy shit kill yourself.

>>2501454
→>>2501395

>>2500698
>Well, I wish Lysenko himself had thought that way
What is that supposed to mean?

OP HERE

After reading all the posts here, my two cents:
(i) Anti-Lysenkoists are unable to clearly formulate and substantiate clearly the 'sins' of Lysenko and why he is slandered so much. It is as if they have been conditioned to dunk on Lysenko, on socio-historical basis rather than scientific basis.
(ii) Pro-Lysenkoists, while not fully convincing, argue their positions much more rationally, and frame the discussion in a scientific setting.

I conclude that Lysenko-slander is counter revolutionary. While not a perfect God, while making errros, the good of Lysenko outweighs his bad.

File: 1759251996785.png (638.33 KB, 720x1280, ClipboardImage.png)

Lysenko was seen in a public bathhouse in the USSR. The comrades about him were astounded to see that he had enormous heaving feminine breasts.

>Comrade Lysenko! Comrade Lysenko!

they shouted over one another with excitement

>Comrade Lysenko! Your breasts are so large! How did this come to be?


<You see, comrades,

said Lysenko
<my mother got breast implants just before getting pregnant with me.

File: 1759252796109.png (249.83 KB, 600x600, ClipboardImage.png)

if lysenko was right, why come the sons of the circumcised are not born circumcised, ever think of that?

>>2502462
That would be Lamarckian evolution. According to Lysenkoism a human who climbs a lot could give birth to a monkey.

>>2494312
sauce anyone?


Unique IPs: 20

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq / search ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / lgbt / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / shop / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]