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 !
Did AES countries outside of the USSR embrace Lysenkoism?
>>2492962Why does it matter? There was only the USSR as AES in Lysenko’s baller years.
>>2492933Can you elaborate? I don't understand Lysenko
>>2492976So why didn’t any other AES nation adopt his ideology?
ah the nikola tesla of schizo mls except nikola tesla actually did some actual science on the side of his alchemy
idealist reactionary wrecker supported to this day by idealist reactionary wreckers simple as
>>2493008Use your fucking brains for once.
>>2492933correct
>>2493008>AES nationno such thing currently exists
>>2493029>no such thing currently existsCommunism has never worked except in this place:
WELCOME TO ISRAEL!!
>>2493016This.
The joke really got ran into the ground by contrarians who think this shit. If they didn't have Lysenko to latch onto they would be your run of the mill antivaxers.
If lysenko was totally wrong, then how come his work on getting fruit growing where it shouldn't succeeded?
>>2492933Objectively and scientifically based
>>2493080wasn't his method, was a bunch of pre-exisiting practices peasants had been using beforehand.
>some anons unironically think lysenko was good
ugh
I hate politicians
>>2493029>no such thing currently existsretard award
>>2492933Yeah, Turing is the GOAT.
>>2493408Is that an anti-communist account?
>>2493653Vavilovites btfo
>>2493730Gigabased. Femboys are unironically the most hitlerite male homosexual archetype. Gender transition is the best way to rehabilitate them.
(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST) >>2493408Isn't this like the soviet version of "Manners maketh man"
I mean this is the stalin era so I doubt there is any trans message here.
>>2493903Don’t let facts get in the way of a good story
>>2493908Sorry, I didn't know communists were idealists.
>>2493653Vavilov wasn't imprisoned for opposing Lysenko, he was imprisoned for his connections to the Bukharinite Right Opposition.
>>2493973There are no communists here. We are all Funko pop addicted, Americanised treatlers.
>>2493977Don’t let facts get in the way of a good story.
>>2493804Gigacringe. Transgenerism is a CIA plot to deplete the national femboy stockpile, thus sapping revolutionaries of their will to fight by denying them access to pristine shaved bussy.
>but transwomen also have shaved bussies!True, but they're also foids and therefore unpleasant to be around outside of sex.
>>2494210Femboys are repulsive.
>>2494312This is so beautiful man. What a contrast with American narcissistic main-character-syndrome and Banderite GIVASism.
>>2494332>could you please explain the science of Lysenkoism with common language?it means eugenics is fake because there is no immortal germ line so there is no material basis for racial supremacy. that is essentially the whole argument and also why lysenko was slandered, most geneticists at the time were eugenicists. he didn't say genes werent real he said they were not fixed and that heritability was in a dialectical relationship with the organisms environment. and he was correct.
>>2494354Isn't modern discoveries in epigenetics like those highlighted in
>>2494332merely a synthesis of Lamarckian and Darwinian ideas and not precisely what Lysenko was putting forward? Wasn't Lysneko proposing more than just epigenetic changes, but crazy things like a species of durham wheat changing its number of chromosomes during its life time to cope with environmental factors?
>>2494359>merely a synthesis of Lamarckian and Darwinian ideasits actually a return to Darwin. Darwin was a Lamarchian and Lysenko defended him on these grounds while Mendel and Morgan disputed Darwin's theory.
>>2494358That aint me bro. I was just merely horsing around and gave an excuse to post my shitty meme.
>>2494364right but people project Lysenko vs. Mendel onto contemporary epigentic discoveries, but what made Lysenko controversial wasn't simply that his ideas resembled contemporary epigenetic discoveries, but that he made claims like Durham Wheat changing its number of chromosomes from 28 to 42, causing it to transform into Common wheat during its life time
>>2494367Understandable
Have a good evening
>>2494378Thanks
>>2494375Eugenicist hands typed this
>>2494375no what made him controversial is that he undermined the foundation of eugenics which was extremely popular in the west at the time he was writing everyone was a psychotic eugenicist with people like huxley getting awards and world renown for it
ugh pls dont make me sound like eugene-kun
>>2494372What Neil Cringe DeGrasse is saying and what the femboy is saying in your shitty pic are not contradictory
the return to darwin via lamarck also undermines social darwinism. you forget how racist people were not just in germany but the whole british empire and how popular galton(darwins cousin) and malthus were at the time
>>2494380I don't see any criticisms of Lysenko not being eugenecist enough, but I see plenty of criticisms of Lysenko for making claims that, among other things, Durham Wheat can change its number of chromosomes from 28 to 42, causing it to transform into Common wheat during its life time. Each time I bring this up I get slandered as a "eugenecist." Please can someone reproduce this experiment that was allegedly possible 80 years ago in the USSR?
>>2495058Lysenko never said wheat could turn into rye. You are a bourgeois falsifier.
>look at this made up essay I foundhow convenient that no Russian equivalent exists in their archives and we're asked to trust and believe in Westoid historians who make shit uo regularly.
>>2495062Do you speak Russian?
At the time, what constituted "genetics" was mendel saying "uh… peas inherit stuff", and this was then wildly extrapolated on to justify eugenics and nazism, which is what the crackdown was really about.
The analogy would be some contemporary disagreeing with Democritus, and then people in the future claiming that democritus invented the modern atomic theory, and everyone who disagreed with him rejected muh science.
>>2495123Nobody disputed Mendel's findings, the problem was that they were used as a justification for an eugenics program in the ussr
Even mendel had to be like "uh… Peas aren't humans"
>>2495123you are too simple, sometimes naive
>>2495132>Even mendel had to be like "uh… Peas aren't humans"You are thinking of Darwin. Mendel died before his discovery became known to the wider scientific community.
But what even is your argument here, the only thing that can stop a bad guy with pseudo science is a good guy with different pseudo science?
>>2495168Being wrong about an emerging branch of science is quite ordinary, shining a spotlight on it and and excessively calling atention to it, and making up atrocity porn, on the other hand, warrants suspicion
At the heart pf liberal slandering of lysenko is the claim that he "let ideology steer science", eg the assertion that bourgeois science is neutral and free of ideology.
Of course all the western eugenics and human experimentation were " mistakes that are now in the past :)", no ideology there
>>249506290% of all Z flag posters are NAFO posters false flagging
>>2495385Noted. Will do better next time, comrade.
>>2494375>during its life time>>2494820>during its life time.
<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). https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lysenko/works/1950s/new.htm
>The success of conversion depends upon the variety(genotype), suitable sowing time and other conditions
(Didus 1957; Rajki 1966). For example, Driga (1963)
summarized his work on the conversion of spring durum
and soft wheat varieties into winter hardy forms. Of the
20 varieties used in the experiment, only 7 varieties were
successfully transformed. Priilinn (1960) reported that the
spring wheat Kauka was readily converted into a winter
wheat by repeated autumn sowings, Diamant was difficult to
be transformed and took a longer time, and German wheat
31243 did not alter at all after four years’ autumn sowings.
In general, the conversion did not occur immediately and
more than two generations are necessary for the conversion
from spring to winter wheat. Remeslo (1962) showed that
soft spring wheat must be sown in autumn for at least two
generations to accomplish conversion into winter wheat,
while this process requires at least four generations in durum
spring wheat. Glushchenko et al. (1972) demonstrated that
the conversion of winter wheat into spring wheat took
place gradually and was complete after five generations
of spring sowing. According to Lysenko (1958), when the
spring wheat Milturum 321, Odessa 13 and Lutescens 1163
were sown for two successive years early in the autumn
(late August or early September), their progeny contained
a higher proportion of converted winter plants than when
sown in late autumn. Similar results were achieved by
Omarov (1958) and Karapetyan (1964).
>>2495771thanks for the contribution but I do not think the anti-Lysenkoists will understand, not unless Oxford University hijacks Lysenko and passes it off as their original bourgeois findings.
>>2495771Can you find any proof of this miracoulus wheat transformation happening outside of the soviet sphere of influence? Weird how this supposedly universal biological process is exclusively tied to a specific time and place isn't it?
Also after all these threads, you could perhaps finally read the paper by the two Chinese researchers, instead of just posting it as 'evidence' for Lysenkoism.
>>2495910polyploidal hybridization happens all the time in cereal crops
>>2494354I should add here that Lysenko's position was not novel or unique at the time. The geneticists (a) did not monopolize biology, and (b) didn't all agree with each other or the claims that would become standard.
The thing that became default wasn't science, but was imposed in 1940, looking ahead to the future rehabilitation of the Nazis and their eugenics program. Ever since, biology is stuck in the dark ages and has only become worse every year.
>>2495920>biology is stuck in the dark ages and has only become worse every yeartrvke just take a look at the 'biology' in amerikkka today
>>2495910eugenicist hands typed this post
>>2495920>biology is stuck in the dark ages and has only become worse every year.biology has literally discovered so much since the 1940s, including a lot of the epigenetic stuff that you guys claim vindicates Lysenko, as well as tons of other interesting stuff.
>>2495932The Heisenberg-Bohr mafia is wrong.
>>2495939the core of the debate is the same as in biology. they want to preserve randomness to say that bourgeoisie rule is destined by god.
>>2495938despite their limitations, in the face of thousands of failures, not because of
>>2495932The funniest thing about "pure genes" is that chromosomal deformities are well known in humans, and they never shut up about the need to exterminate such things, yet "it can't possibly happen!" You don't see a more brazen case of denying facts than in the eugenists' hypocrisy.
Really though, animal societies and their mating populations are not fixed in the way that is imagined, and certainly not over many thousands of years. Animals tend to migrate, and their mating populations are local rather than general. These basic facts about how animals mate should have refuted the Darwinian theory on arrival, and this was indeed how a lot of people thought. The imperial ecologists were very violent in imposing this theory on history, inventing very elaborate systems of lying to prop it up until they could just assert it under threat of legal punishment.
>>2495914That is something entirely different from what Lysenko claimed and is perfectly in line with genetics.
>>2496030>Animals tend to migrate, and their mating populations are local rather than general. These basic facts about how animals mate should have refuted the Darwinian theory on arrivalCould you elaborate on this? I don't see how this contradicts darwinian evolution.
>>2496062To believe in "natural selection" requires a belief that mating is incidental and automatic, rather than deliberate and carried out in manners particular for a given mating grounds or species. Very often the result of nature is that many of the males and a number of the females never reproduce, rather than an imagined "equal opportunity" that Malthusianism implied. Also, the selection of mates is deliberate beyond possessing a species identity marker; it wouldn't even be possible to select for species if mating were truly random, because one animal could be replaced with a fetish object or incorrect target. Some deliberation is inherent in the act of sex.
Basically; if you're putting political economy into nature, this is not going to operate over millions of years in an inexorable trend. Animal societies, like human societies, have a definite history for the participants. Animals live and die in peril, rather than for some abstract notion of what life "ought" to be. The result is that these societies of stable populations crash and their remnants disperse over a period of thousands of years, and this happens many times over. The expectation would be that sudden changes are asserted and split off from a population, and like I said, chromosomal abnormalities in humans are birth defects that recur often. If your theory of heredity requires editing history violently to make it correct, it says something about the intent of the theory.
>>2495946ok please transform durham wheat into common wheat through environmental pressure
lysenkoism is the flat earth of the left
>>2496354this, both reject materialism and embrace idealistic nonsense since it soothes the ego and provides more fuel for there main character syndrome
>>2496062>That is something entirely different from what Lysenko claimed and is perfectly in line with genetics.its not. idk why you have convinced yourself lysenkoism is a thing(its not) and that it lives or dies based on hyperspecific claims he didn't make. at the end all he ever really said was that organisms inherent acquired characteristics, which is what darwin also believed, and is true. and lysenko was a michurinist anyway. "lysenkoism" is as real as "stalinism" its made up bs anticommunist propaganda
>>2496349we already know punctuated equilibrium and polyploidy are real. vernalization and epigenitics already prove inheritance of acquired characteristics.
i guess since gemmules arent real we should throw all of darwin in the trash as well?
>>2496445ok please transform durham wheat into common wheat through environmental pressure
I don't know anything about Lysenkoism but if his ideas are true there is no reason he should not be embraced by the greater scientific community. In before they dont like him because he was a communist, WRONG. If his ideas about agriculture had any truth to them about increasing productivity there is a large incentive for farmers to implement them so that they generate more profit. It seems his defenders at best are just extreme lovers of soviet scientists and at worst deny the famines of china and the soviet union.
>>2496506Lysenkoists are silly. They are holding down an ideological fort that was destroyed a while ago. Major Marxist-Leninist parties like the Communist Party of China abandoned Lysenkoism in the 1970s (REVISIONISTM!!!1!). They now lead the world in research into genetic inheritance. To the extent that epigenetics has changed our view of genetics, it has not vindicated Lysenko's claims which were neither falsifiable nor repeatable, and whose experimental methods were secretive and poorly documented.
Lysenkoists ironically claim to be dialectical materialist (i.e. grounded in material reality, as theory must be tested through practice), anti-idealist, anti-dogmatic defenders of science that serve the working class. They critique others for being ideological, metaphysical, or idealist. But when faced with material facts (modern genetics works, Lysenkoism fails), real-world historical outcomes, actual Marxist practice (China using genetics, not Lysenkoism), and reasoned counterarguments, they dismiss it not based on substance, but because they have tricked themselves into thinking that modern genetics is always and forever "eugenicist" and "scientific racist." That’s pure idealism! They’re retreating into ideological purity tests rather than confronting contradictions. It’s the exact opposite of what dialectical materialism demands. They should at least try to reproduce Lysenko's experiments, but in a less secretive way, and with peer review from the international community, including Marxist scientists from countries like China, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and the DPRK.
Did Lysenko actually claim to transform Durham wheat into common wheat in a single generation using environmental pressure? Yes!
Lysenko promoted the idea that you could "educate" plants through environmental exposure. Traits acquired during one generation (e.g. cold resistance from being exposed to winter) could be passed on directly to the next: Lamarckian inheritance. Through a process he called "vernalization", crops could be "trained" to adapt to new climates or change their biological behavior. One of his boldest (and most scientifically absurd) claims was that Durham wheat (a tetraploid species) could be transformed into common wheat (a hexaploid species) through environmental conditions alone. This is biologically impossible under current genetic understanding. Why? Because Durham wheat (Triticum durum) has 4 sets of chromosomes (tetraploid). Common wheat (Triticum aestivum) has 6 sets of chromosomes (hexaploid). The jump from 4n to 6n requires hybridization and chromosomal duplication, not mere exposure to cold or drought! So, scientifically speaking, Lysenko was either wrong, fraudulent, or mistakenly interpreting stress responses or cross-contaminated seed lines as "transformation."
If this was possible, why hasn’t anyone repeated it? The claim was likely never real to begin with. Replication requires access to the original materials and methods, and it turns out Lysenko’s methods were secretive, poorly documented, and not reproducible. Modern agricultural scientists have tried and failed to replicate these kinds of changes through environmental pressures alone. In real science claims need to be falsifiable and replicable. Lysenko’s weren’. Lysenkoists are engaging in idealist dogmatism cloaked as materialism.
>>2496445We probably should throw Darwin in the trash, but the world isn't ready for that conversation. It needs to be ready soon, or else it will be entirely too late.
Fact is, biology has been run into the ground so thoroughly that we know less about life than we did 200 years ago. All of the genuine advances in the biological science were negated methodically and replaced with this ghastly doppleganger. Biology was the first and most crucial science where this took place, not counting the sciences that were entirely consigned to the domain of the ideologues like psychology and sociology. They successfully took over physics with the same sort of rank pseudoscience, and now they're taking over everything. They've pretty well destroyed any genuine science that was happening, all for Eugenics.
Anyway the idea that the working class requires an oppositional "total system" is a false thinking that the ruling institutions always impose as a "default position" that is granted legitimacy purely because it is default and precedent is observed legalistically. Courts of Law rely on precedent (and not always in the same way), but science is not a court or a thing dictated by lawyers in the way that is insinuated. The scientific inquiry is one that would in principle be independently reproduced in one way or another, even if the particular wording and first principles of inquiries are different; that is, from different first principles, many scientists can arrive at the same conclusion about the universe, just understood differently, and then these models can be compared since they all refer to a thing that the scientific community doesn't doubt. For example, no one seriously doubts there is such a thing as hereditary traits in life. The false dichotomy is used to say that if you don't agree with the total system of Eugenics, then you must not believe in evolution and "the science".
FWIW Lysenko never criticized eugenics in that way, since the Soviet Union had its version of eugenics / selective breeding for social purposes. His dispute with the geneticists was over the scientific claims made about life and evolution, rather than a moral or political claim; and Lysenko didn't deny the existence of "genes" as such, which is why he brings up the chromosomes. He is specifically arguing that heredity did not work in the way that was being asserted by the eugenists, where "genes as information" exists in some physical code that can be read and rewritten at will. The actual working of any living body does not allow this to trivially edit life in the way geneticists please. All that can be done with this, and this is very imperfect, is chemical changes; changes which are rarely ever consistent, and the only thing the geneticists do is snip out some genes for another and guess that this will have some effect by feels. It's like copying a piece of computer code blindly and thinking "this always works" and insisting you're not supposed to think about what anything you copied does. No computer programmer would think like that if he were serious. It would be a dereliction of the most basic things a programmer does.
Because of all of the philosophical damage Eugenics caused, we would have to start over from roughly where Lamarck was, almost entirely because of the pernicious influence of the Darwinians. It's also worth noting that Darwin himself didn't like the philosophical claims being made based on his work, and what he posed was a real question—that political economy could be supposed to work in natural history to answer the origin of life, without any written record of such available to us. If genetics were pursued honestly, the discovery of DNA shouldn't have recapitulated "strict Darwinism" but repudiated Darwin's theory for good, with only a little insight needed. That was the direction many in biology were going until 1940 when it was ruled legalistically that supporting anything other than Darwinism was heresy and would be against the law.
>>2496540>>2496538Ok please repeat Lysenko's experiments.
>>2496538>We know less about life than we did 200 years ago.What? RETVRN to 1825?
>>2496542They have been repeated because they're not difficult to reproduce. This has always been a training regimen for "goodfacts", to automatically dismiss anything that says anything besides "genes are destiny".
Lysenko never says "this is how you turn wheat into rye every time", which is the standard of proof they're trying to make. He says "this is something I have observed when watching a lot of farms", and because he was an agronomist specializing in plant biology, he knew this area a lot more than geneticists who really didn't study life proper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vavilovian_mimicryThis is a helpful read to see what game is really being played to uphold the geneticist theory. If there is no rye planted, why does it spawn "spontaneously"? You see in the linked article the literal invocation of doublethink or "duping", when no such trick is being played. It gets ludicrous that these stories have to be invented based primarily on treachery, rather than acknowledging a regular mutation takes place by the nature of the life-form and its conditions. Usually weeds grow despite the efforts of farmers to select what will grow. In a controlled experiment you'd not have any weeds. It's hard to really make those controlled conditions without contamination. Something required the invention of "duping" to sow additional confusion. I'm not an agronomist but this is the fishiest thing if you care about science.
Grasshoppers turning into locusts proves that evolution works more like Pokemon than anything in any science textbook
>>2496558> "genes are destiny".who are you quoting
>>2496542Are you even reading what the Lysenko-anon is writing?!
>>2496568Why wouldn’t grasshopers turning into locusts qualify? It’s literally one species turning into another due to environmental changes
>>2496570>Why wouldn’t grasshopers turning into locusts qualify? It’s literally one species turning into another due to environmental changesLocusts are not a different species from grasshoppers, they are grasshoppers in a specific behavioral phase known as the swarming phase or gregarious phase.
Under certain environmental conditions (like crowding and abundant food), some grasshopper species undergo changes in behavior, physiology, and appearance, becoming what we call locusts. This transformation allows them to form large, destructive swarms. The transformation from a solitary to a gregarious (swarming) phase is a phenotypic change, not a genetic one.
>>2496568>>2496570>>2496572also keep in mind the time-scales. Not everything happens on the scale of 1, 10 or even 100 years. Some transformations occur on hundreds of thousands of years.
So one cannot expect 'physics level' of experiment and validation for every case. Sad.
>>2496567I'm not a "Lysenko stan", merely someone who cares about truth. Lysenko has quite a few black marks against him but it has nothing to do with this bizarre ideological crusade over genetics, which as I say Lysenko didn't really disagree with. He had a specific dispute with Thomas Morgan, but interestingly Morgan was one of the American geneticists that didn't endorse Eugenics (not for the reasons you expect, but basically because he didn't believe evolution worked that way at all). In a way Lysenko could be seen as running defense for the establishment to come on the question of genetics. The real reason they hated Lysenko so much wasn't about his genetic theories but his work in agronomy and the whole "feeding the people" thing, because the anticommunists needed to portray the communists as people completely alien to reality to sell what they were going to do to America and the world. At the time Lysenko was most prominent, during the 30s and early 40s, he wasn't a controversial figure at all and had respectability around the world, even if he was seen as an administrative creature more than a scientist. People who worked in agriculture would say everything Lysenko taught worked for them, including in America… and since America at the time was at the forefront of agricultural techniques, this had to be undermined. The big objective the Fabians had was to undermine American agriculture, tell them that agricultural output was intrinsically evil because "le carbon", so that the Malthusian prophecy would be made real. Even with all of the effort to do this, it hasn't been successful. Too many people in America have too much to lose, and it's one thing Republicans are totally unwilling to give up because it's the only reason they had any popular support (but now with Trump, that's all over).
>>2496613>I'm not a "Lysenko stan"there's your problem
>>2496284Can't respond to this, because I have no idea what you think you are arguing against. Asking you to elaborate was a mistake.
>>2496440>you are wrong because you didn't use my preferred terminology>>2496561do you think a male deer growing antlers also becomes a different species?
>>2496660male deer, as we know them, do grow antlers.
Your snarky response would make sense if male deers never had antlers and then suddenly a generation of new male deer started growing antlers.
>>2496561nonsense. Science textbooks which concern with grasshoppers clearly explain the process. If anything, it is the writers of Pokemon who took inspiration from science textbooks.
>>2496538There is no contradiction between Darwin and Lysenko. Lysenko is the natural evolution of Darwin. Like Einstein from Newton. Like Lenin from Marx.
>>2496663And grasshoppers as we know them undergo changer in behavior and body under certain conditions.
>>2496671The grasshopper hasn't become a different species with a different genome.
>>2496697cute kitty
if it grew a trunk, would it be a different species?
how many millions did he starve
>>2496666That's the problem with Lysenko. He couldn't break with Darwinism completely and ask if the entire theory wasn't based on easily false premises if you think about sex for five minutes.
I suppose I'm biased because my own thinking on politics and economy answers this very question. It is the reason why I wrote a book describing each before fitting them into history itself; to describe the sleight-of-hand being played on people as best as I can. I am no great philosopher but I try because, so far as I can tell, no one really has. It isn't too difficult to use today's systems thought to describe evolution of actual animals or "systems", and describe a theory of history that can model each individual animal, its habits and tendencies, and consider what actually happens in mating and in the entire developmental process, up to the time where new members of the species are there to mate.
>>2496756
Lysenko was not a politician, redditard
>>2496754I respectfully disagree. Uphold Darwin, uphold Lysenko.
>>2496723This, they weren't victims of Lysenkoism, they were victims of communism.
>>2496773anti-communists deserve to be victims of communism, yes. Else, communists end up being victims of anti-communists.
>>2496788Do communists deserve to be the victims of communism
>>2496754The prevalence of sex is proof of darwinian evolution. There would be no need for sexual reproduction, if organisms could reactively change traits in a spontaneous manner. Novel adaptations however can only arise from random mutations filtered by natural selection. Sexual reproduction allows for those beneficial adaptations to be shared by all members of a population within a few generations. If evolution were Lamarckian, you'd see a lot more asexual reproduction in nature.
>>2496791Victims of communism are by definition anti-communists.
So a communist who's a victim of communism is a logical fallacy, an oxymoron, a mental and semantic heresy.
yet another labor aristocrat armchair debate for soy PMC radlibs who have never gotten any dirt under their fingernails like their slaves
>>2493012>nikola tesla actually did some actual science on the side of his alchemyPeople continually express the hauntology of Telsa's alternative history that never existed, but no one ever imagines an alternative Lysenko future. No one ever asks "wot if a red potato was yellow"
>>2495200>the assertion that bourgeois science is neutral and free of ideologyUSSR secret police kidnapping? (scoffs) the CIA gives funding to avant garde artists, that's a much worse atrocity actually
goalpost shifting:
>>2496440>all he ever really said was that organisms inherent acquired characteristicsthe most revolutionary scientist is suddenly just a smol bean uwu
>>2496558>He says "this is something I have observed when watchingghost hunters have more empirical basis than Lysenko, electricity is real.
>>2496754>ask if the entire theory wasn't based on easily false premises if you think about sex for five minutes.Gooner thread lmao
>I'm biased because my own thinking on politics and economy answers this very questionOi, Marxist degenerates! Go speak to your slaves!
>>2493012you're the first uygha to bring up Tesla in this thread
there's a world which exists outside your small mind
>>2496799So the millions killed in famines were deliberately targeted? Interesting.
>>2497012neither millions nor famines
you are democrackkka wreckkka
COPE, he still wrong and got proven wrong.
>>2494312get me a wallpaper out of this quote.
fucking based
>>2496521>Because Durham wheat (Triticum durum) has 4 sets of chromosomes (tetraploid). Common wheat (Triticum aestivum) has 6 sets of chromosomes (hexaploid). The jump from 4n to 6n requires hybridization and chromosomal duplication, not mere exposure to cold or drought!USSR was sowing it's fields with winter varieties of some summer strain wheat, though, in the 70-80s. Wiki IIRC was claiming that strains had 4 and 6 sets of chromosomes
>why hasn’t anyone repeated it?It was repeated. There were even repeats with frogs, though I'm not sure why.
>Modern agricultural scientists have tried and failed to replicate these kinds of changes through environmental pressures alone.Vernalization is used to this day with good results.
AI has randomly spewed out this, even:
>Epigenetic silencing isthe mechanism by which vernalization, the requirement for winter cold to induce flowering, is achieved in plants like Arabidopsis. Cold exposure leads to the accumulation of histone modifications, particularly H3K27me3, at the FLOWERING LOCUS C (FLC) gene, a repressor of flowering. This epigenetic mark stably silences the FLC gene, creating a "memory" of winter that promotes flowering after the cold period ends, and this silencing can be inherited through cell divisions.
Seems like vernalization DOES IN FACT causes epigenetic changes
>>2497267Oh no, please no, science, WHY are you siding with Lysenko's claims?!?! they very resolutely disproven!!!
https://www.jic.ac.uk/news/interdisciplinary-teamwork-sheds-light-on-the-intricate-mechanisms-of-epigenetic-silencing/The study finds that conformations of central protein domains in VRN5 defines its interaction with the protein complex Repressive Polycomb Complex 2 (PRC2), whose activity results in the deposition of lysine marks at histone H3 (H3K27me3) as a hallmark of epigenetic silencing.
By contrast, VIN3 depends on VRN5 to associate with PRC2 and distinctly interacts with VAL1, a transcriptional repressor that binds directly to the FLC gene during vernalization.
Although VIN3 and VRN5 were originally identified as vernalization regulators, the study finds that they co-associate with many other genes in the Arabidopsis genome that are modified with H3K27me3.
>>2497267>Seems like vernalization DOES IN FACT causes epigenetic changes>epigeneticbuy lysenkoists deny the genetic, let alone the epigenetic, and say that any reference to the genetic makes you a nazi eugenicist
>defending scientifically completely falsified losers
Maybe OP can project himself in similiar position.
>>2497285No? Show me where Lysenko denies genes and genetics.
Honestly, the more one reads about wheat strains, and how plants seem to carry within them DNA of other plants randomly, even of extinct ones, which is usually an inactive DNA, it's not fucking wonder that harsh selection such as vernalization causes high variety of offsprings
I can't find the article off the bat which went into details about the foreign DNA in wheat, but cursory search shows stuff like 85% of wheat DNA is repetitve. Thing is, plants are stupid like this, their DNA is a mess, they hybridize rather easily and acquire other species' shit. It's like, the more you read, the more you understand that Lysenko wasn't wrong. He wasn't exactly right, but the experiments did produce valid results, which were dismissed only because of eugenicist dogma. And now, as it turns out, Lysenko was essentially not wrong - but dogmatics keep on clinging to their sacred texts about how Lysenko is science's Devil
>>2497355so many heroic comrades have been slandered
One of these days, Leftypol has to muster the courage and face the mountain himself: Iosif Vissarianovich
Funny how quickly lysenkoids pivot from, vernalization makes wheat turn into a completly different species, to the wheat stays the same species, but there are some epigenetic effects, which is completly different from Lysenkos theory. Kind of like a flat earther feeling vindicated, when he learns the earth is more of an uneven ellipsoid than a sphere.
>>2497368organisms inherent characteristics acquired through the parents lifetime. there is no pivot only correction of a strawman argument
>>2497420Epigenetics doesn't create new genes and doesn't function at all like Lysenkos theory of evolution.
>>2497436Genes don't exist at all, stop believing in metaphysics
>>2497436really? what is "Lysenkos theory of evolution"?
>>2497448it seems the core contention here is what i stated earlier: randomness. essentially this is a difference in how to practically go about artificial selection, with lysenko saying that environmental pressure can aid the development and expression of desired traits, and the opposition claiming that the causes of mutagenesis is completely arbitrary.
Let's be honest lysenkoids are humanity majors at best with too much time on their hands, the soft hands of a city dweller who never touched a woman or a crop. I'll pay attention when actual agronomists and genetic engineers talk about him
>>2497470we can see this in the soviet arguments over nuclear drosophilia experiments. what is the practical social benefit to studying random mutations?
well for one unique organisms are patentable. but how does that benifit the working class?
>>2497379Yes when you chop up any smooth gradual process into discrete units there is bound to be some arbitrariness and loss of accuracy, but that happens when you construct any model.
>>2497485>To this day no clear-cut definition of the term species exists in the science of biology. Ok yes but that doesn't mean you can turn durum wheat into common wheat through vernalization
>>2497267>USSR was sowing it's fields with winter varieties of some summer strain wheat, though, in the 70-80s. Wiki IIRC was claiming that strains had 4 and 6 sets of chromosomesare you claiming you can turn durum wheat into common wheat through vernalization? please do so.
>>2497485ive read it im asking what you think
>>2497491I posted this so the Lysenkoid actually sees what he is defending. I am fully aware it is nonsense and it will only get worse as you keep reading.
>>2497491can you explain how the presumed impossibility of turning durum wheat into common wheat disproves the inheritance of acquired characteristics?
>>2497495Can you cite where you think Lysenko is describing epigenetics?
>>2497454>epigenetics vindicates lysenko but also genes aren't realThe molecular gene is a sequence of nucleotides in DNA that is transcribed to produce a functional RNA. Do you deny the existence of DNA and RNA? If so please provide evidence.
PS: you clowns will twist yourselves like pretzels into a weird mixture of stoner monk and category theorist and start claiming that any time someone uses language to name a distinct entity or relation between entities they are imposing arbitrary distinctions onto real nature and are therefore making up fake concepts. "oh there is no floor, there is only a series of planks, oh there is no planks, there is only a series of wood molecules, oh there is no wood molecule, there is only a collection of atoms, oh there is no atoms, there is only a collection of subatomic particles, oh there are no subatomic particles there are only quantum fluctuations of energy" and so on. Yes by that logic nothing is real, and nothing to get hung about, strawberry fields forever.
>>2497497>disprove my claimactually you have to prove your claim, charlie kirk. skepticism is justified.
>>2497498well i dont think he is, since it wasnt discovered yet. i dont recall him proposing a mechanism, just that the environment effects inheritance.
so again, what theory of evolution do you believe he proposed?
>>2497502im not making a claim i am asking what the importance of such a claim even is. which part of lysenkos theory relies on turning durum wheat into common wheat? if it is found to be true or false what specifically does that prove or disprove?
>>2497499Quality post yet I disagree about this inherited cultural view of the world instead of accepting material facts.
>>2497504> environment affects* inheritancenon-lysenkoist biology doesn't deny this. natural selection is literally organisms surviving to reproductive age based on whether their inherited traits are compatible with that environment. As the environment changes, so do the traits which survive.
>>2497507>which part of lysenkos theory relies on turning durum wheat into common wheat?the part where he claimed you could change durham wheat into common wheat through vernalization in a single generation.
>>2497504But he lists several supposed observations that can't be explained through darwinian evolution.
>>2497514>can't be explained through darwinian evolutionDamn this thread has gems and coal.
>>2497514>can't be explained through darwinian evolution.>>2494364>its actually a return to Darwin. Darwin was a Lamarchian and Lysenko defended him on these grounds while Mendel and Morgan disputed Darwin's theory.which is it again?
>>2497533didn't suggest that, just find it interesting how much diversity has evolved among lysenkoists
>>2497537Read the thread, I am arguing against Lysenkoism. There are other examples you can use for them contradicting each other.
>>2497537What's the big deal with him anyway, if we dug up all the stupid shit scientists have believed we'd be here for the rest of our lives
>>2497543Hes a holy person because of dogmatism.
>>2497545And also a devil because of dogmatism
>>2497545He’s a devil because of anti-soviet dogmatism.
A fair and neutral analysis vindicates the man.
But that requires work, which treatlers are disgusted by.
>>2497547He was the right hand scientist of the holy Stalin who inherited the holy spirit of Lenin. Anything else is liberal unholy revisionism.
>>2497552He was the right hand scientist of the devil Stalin, who inherited the evil spirit of devil Lenin. Anything else is based muh rule of law democratic plurality
>>2497545>>2497547>>2497550>>2497552He transformed
water Durham Wheat into
wine Common Wheat, and the
Pharisees Vavilovites hated him because he
told the truth was dialectical materialist and
multiplied the loaves actually yeah, multiplied the loaves >>2497558Read Lysenko Embrace Lysenko Defend Lysenko Become Lysenko
>>2497491>are you claiming you can turn durum wheat into common wheat through vernalization?I don't know how they did this. I only know that they did, in fact, breed a winter species out of a summer one. Or maybe the other way around
Besides, we are talking about plants, creatures that produce viable offspring from hybridization. Changes in chromosome number are to be expected from selective breeding
Oh, found it
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D1%8E%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81 As you can see, lutescens wheat contains both winter and spring varieties. While I can't claim for sure that varieties were either 4 or 6 sets of chromosomes, I was led to believe that all winter wheat is 4 sets, and all spring wheat is 6 sets
Next
>Einkorn is one of the oldest ancestors of wheat. Cultivation dates back to 8000BC. It is a diploid, with 14 chromosomes, compared to 42 in modern wheat.How did ancient humans increase chromosome number threefold?!?! Must be ALINES!!!1
>>2497671https://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/1/001/008/061/391.htmThis claims that Kirichenko has for the first time in history bred durum WINTER wheat. Also mentions interspecies and in-species hybridization efforts
https://vavilov.elpub.ru/jour/article/download/62/59This talks about a breeder named Kobaltov who has hybridized winter soft wheat with spring durum wheat to create winter durum wheat (Леукурум 1278 и 1320)
Then AI, again:
Yes,
hybrid lines can be developed by crossing durum wheat (a tetraploid with AABB genomes) and common wheat (a hexaploid with AABBDD genomes) to transfer beneficial traits like disease resistance, stress tolerance, or improved quality into either the durum or common wheat genetic background. These interspecific crosses often result in pentaploid F1 hybrids that can be used for breeding programs, although fertility and seed set can be challenges that need to be overcome through careful parental selection
How are durum and common wheat hybrids made?
Interspecific Crosses: Durum wheat and common wheat are crossed to create pentaploid hybrids.
Chromosome Backcrossing and Selection: The pentaploid hybrids can then undergo a process of backcrossing to one of the parent species, followed by selection for plants with the desired chromosome number (e.g., tetraploid for durum-type, or hexaploid for common wheat-type).
Modern Breeding Techniques: Methods like using doubled haploid (DH) technology can accelerate the development of homozygous lines from early generation hybrids.
So, like, what you gonna do with this? It seems like common and durum wheat share genes pretty easily
>>2497511he didn't actually though. he reported that someone else claimed that. the important part though is what this means to his theory, if he has one, what that theory actually is and whether such a theory fails or survives based on the claim. you still haven't explained the logic chain for the importance of the claim.
again, gemmules, as darwined envisioned them, turned out not to exist, yet his actual theory remains.
>>2497509>non-lysenkoist biology doesn't deny this.it doesn't now because it has incorporated what what was already known to be true in the ussr into the modern synthesis in the face of overwhelming evidence. at the time lysenko was writing this was not the case.
id be interested if anyone can find the actual report from V. I. Karapetian (1948) or Rajki (1965) in the original language. the second should be in Acta Agronomica Hungarica volume 13 pages 263–285 on conversion of spring into winter wheat and its geneticinterpretation but im getting a $200 paywall and its not on scihub
>>2497683>for the first time in history bred durum WINTER wheati think if we interpret this charitably the initial report of chromosomal changes might have been an untested assumption and durum and "common" might have been used as synonym for spring and winter in this context but it is difficult to tell without the text. even outside the ussr there wasn't a standard procedure for counting chromosomes until the mid 50s
>>2497695Personally, i interpret it as wheat stalks literally containing hybridized seeds with different species plants. There are reports of this stuff all the time. Again, harsher selection would result in a higher variety of seeds. Lysenko had claimed that (others have claimed that) there was a clear different specie seed growing on wheat stalks, but I don't believe that. Either a contamination, or charitable specie interpretation, or what else
But again, wheat genome contains 85% repetition, and 3 different parent species, so in a very theoretical sense, it should be possible to extract those species from wheat. That's science fiction, though, at least should be
If your "science" prevails by way of cramming it down peoples throats incessantly and imprisoning all of its critics and suppressing every alternative theory then it's not science; it's pseudoscience. Genuine science - observing the world for what it is and not for what you would like it to be - stands on its own, it needs no carrots or sticks.
>>2497716truth does not require a "free market of ideas". This is obviously false. Neither does it require a democracy
>>2497751It does require consensus, something you cannot force
>>2497753truth doesn't require consensus either
>>2497755Truth isn’t fully true until it’s recognized and put into language
>>2497694>but im getting a $200 paywall and its not on scihubElbakyan has failed us smdh
>>2497572>The molecular gene is not a gene because it just isn't OKlike anon said you'll just twist yourself into a pretzel:
< "oh there is no floor, there is only a series of planks, oh there is no planks, there is only a series of wood molecules, oh there is no wood molecule, there is only a collection of atoms, oh there is no atoms, there is only a collection of subatomic particles, oh there are no subatomic particles there are only quantum fluctuations of energy" and so on. >>2497767well its really old the first two archives only go back to the 70s and keep telling me to go to the library for print copies. i dont even think it has a doi
>>2497772Lysenko was sent to a breeding station in Azerbaijan, literally in a city called Ganja
if quadruples, lysenkoists ITT have to turn durham wheat into common wheat in 1 generation through vernalization alone
>>2497751>>2497753>>2497755>>2497758Truth is already there, outside of us, outside of the universe in fact. It is fundamental and it is eternal and it is constant. Cause must always precede effect and you can never divide a number by zero, these are fundamental truths that were just as true before the universe came into being and they will still be true after the universe ends and they will be true in any other kind of universe that could ever be; truth is that which is utterly immutable.
>>2497768DNA is a molecule
"Gene" is a metaphysical concept
What's the so hard to understand?
>>2497791>Cause must always precede effectLolno. Consult, for example, a three bodies problem.
>you can never divide a number by zeroYou can't divide by zero not because it's "truth", but because numbers that come out doesn't make sense. Mathematically speaking, you get an undefined result; division is the mirror of multiplication; if you assume that 5 / 0 = infinity, that must mean that 0 * infinity = 5, which is wrong
>>2497808depending on how you run your calculations, infinity * 0 = 5 is valid just not more true than infinity * 0 = 4.
this is trivial to show in some cases, eg. running a divergent series backwards can get you arbitrary x=0 values.
>>2497809infinity * 0 = 0. Any number multiplied by 0 is 0
>>2497799A gene is a stretch of DNA that codes for a product (like a protein) or regulates something.
>>2497831well you see, the warbler gets cucked by the cuckoo. the cuckoo pushes the warbler's eggs out of the next and replaces them with its own.
>>2497808>Lolno. Consult, for example, a three bodies problem. In the three-body problem, the focus is on how three massive bodies (like planets or stars) interact with each other due to their gravitational forces. It's a mathematical and physical problem that shows how unpredictable their movement can be. But cause and effect in this context still follow the usual rules because each body's movement is the result of the gravitational pull (the cause) from the other two bodies (the effect). However, what makes it tricky is that the movements are chaotic, meaning you can’t easily predict exactly how they’ll move in the long term. Small changes can lead to huge differences in their orbits over time, almost like a butterfly effect. Now, in quantum mechanics, the idea that effects can precede causes gets more attention. In quantum physics, particles can be in multiple states at once or seem to "choose" their state based on measurement, leading to things like "retrocausality" or "time symmetry" in some interpretations of quantum theory. But again, this is a whole different ballgame from the three-body problem, and pretty controversial.
>>2497799>"Gene" is a metaphysical conceptWords that we use to describe reality fail to do so completely. You cannot use an a-priori schematization to describe everything. Russel and Whitehead tried. Godel proved it was impossible. The concept of language games from Wittgenstein also apply here. Concepts have a certain level of arbitrariness, ambiguity, and abstraction to them. When you behold reality, you behold it through your imperfect sense. you have an bunch of undifferentiated phenomenon that your nervous system filters into simplified information. you then transform this simplified information into even more simplified and abstracted concepts through things like language. You ignore what is unimportant to you and keep what is important. As we continue to study reality we find that what is important to us changes over time, and so that concepts we invent to model or understand reality prove to be limited, arbitrary, or ambiguous for our new purposes where they were perfectly fine for our old purposes. So when you say
>DNA is a molecule>"Gene" is a metaphysical conceptMy first answer was simple:
<A gene is a stretch of DNA that codes for a product (like a protein) or regulates something.But I realize this probably won't satisfy you. Just consider this: Even the concept of an atom, let alone a molecule, is an arbitrary, ambiguous, abstracted model. The atom itself is not the uncuttable thing Democritus was thinking of. It turns out to be a highly differentiated group of phenomena. There are subatomic particles. But those are abstractions to. Everything is a smooth gradient but we have to draw lines somewhere and say "this is the entity or relationship we are choosing to focus on."
You find the concept of a gene problematic and associate it with eugenics, and so forth. But rest assured the molecular gene does not need to carry any of that ideological baggage. When a contemporary biologist says "gene" just understand they are talking about a stretch of DNA that codes for a product or regulates something. Make sense?
>>2497843It is very lazy to respond with a snipping tool of an AI overview from a page 1 search result, but Mendel called units of heredity "factors" and only later was it discovered that DNA exists, and sections of DNA, what we call molecular genes can sometimes code for these inherited factors. This is obviously contingent on a lot of things. One can always claim an abstraction is a lie because it doesn't cover every situation. God knows we have Smith-Anon in the political economy thread who talks about Marx's concept of value the way Lysenkoists talk about genes.
>>2497845the reason hes calling it metaphysical is because the concept of a gene as a unit of heredity does not correspond to a physical object except in special cases which are not the norm and do not form a rule. most phenotype expression is not the result of a gene or even multiple genes but a complex interaction of multiple genes and the composition of the organism and its relation to its environment.
its not AI its wiki you will see that the modern definition is in conflict with the popular conception of a gene
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene#Definitionshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene#Discovery_of_discrete_inherited_unitshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolutionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_heritability_problempeople are not disputing the existence of DNA or that sequences in DNA transcribe proteins but the idea that DNA corresponds to discrete units of heritability which is why that poster made the distinction
>DNA is a molecule>"Gene" is a metaphysical conceptits not a disagreement about the level of abstraction
and of course lysenko was not in disagreement about the proper modern definition because it did not yet exist. he was in dispute with mendel specifically so all your chat about DNA is completely beside the point and not addressing the conversation
>>2497855How do you cope with the fact Mendels experiments can be easily reproduced unlike Lysenkos nonsense?
>>2497860its pretty easy when mendels experiments dont hold for the vast majority of traits
more importantly lysenko was an agronomist not a geneticist and his agronomy techniques are still used today
>>2497862I am pretty sure the vast majority of traits emerge from the interactions between proteins that are construct according to RNA which has been transcribed from DNA within the chromosomes.
>>2497808>a three bodies problem. That's not a violation of causality.
>You can't divide by zero not because it's "truth"The reason you can't divide by zero is the same reason you can't know where an electron is - because these questions are meaningless to begin with. There is no concept of "here" or "there" for an electron so it doesn't make sense to ask where it is.
>>2497866sure but proteins are not genes. and that also wasn't what mendel said.
>>2497864>more importantly lysenko was an agronomist not a geneticistSo why do Lysenkoists talk opine on genes at all
>his agronomy techniques are still used todayPlease turn durham wheat into common wheat in 1 generation through vernalization alone
>>2497839>In quantum physics, particles can be in multiple states at once or seem to "choose" their state based on measurement, leading to things like "retrocausality" or "time symmetry" in some interpretations of quantum theory.Things can seem to violate causality and other laws of nature at the quantum level because our understanding of reality is based entirely on our macroscopic conception of the world and so we ask meaningless questions like "where is the electron?" but there is no "here" or "there" for an individual electron because "here" and "there" are concepts that only apply to macroscopic objects in physical space, thus when we try to observe where the electron is we get random nonsensical results.
>>2497871>but proteins are not genesliteracy at an all time low on this french etymology forum
>that also wasn't what mendel said Mendel proved that the units of inheritance must come in pairs. This was later corroborated by the discovery of chromosome pairs. His research set us on the right path. Meanwhile there are no later breakthroughs in genetics that can be traced back to Lysenkos theories.
>>2497891>I never claimed to turn lead into gold, I need to turn it into silver first! >>2497866>traits emerge from the interactions between proteinsYou are agreeing with Lysenko. Proteins are traits. Genes are units of heredity. Where is the line for what constitutes a unit? If you include proteins then you are including DNA expression and its interaction with the environment, which means you think the unit of heredity can be acquired through an individuals lifetime.
>>2497899>the unit of heredity can be acquired through an individuals lifetime.???? it can though. Vernalized mother plant, for example, produces offspring that get pre-vernalized
Parts of DNA can be sensitive to certain external stimuli, be activated or deactivated dependent on external conditions. If you claim that this is not *true* heredity then you don't understand the state the genetics were in in the 1920-50s when Mendeloids were publically humiliated by Michurinists
>>2497899Carefully reread my post. It's not very long I am sure even your cooked brain can figure out what it says.
>>2497906you agree that most traits arent neatly attributed to individual genes in isolation.
>>2497906>reread my post>>2497855>of course lysenko was not in disagreement about the proper modern definitionbecause it agrees with him>>2497855>all your chat about DNA is completely beside the point and not addressing the conversation>>2497853>people are not disputing the existence of DNA or that sequences in DNA transcribe proteins >>2497902This is the beauty of Lysenkoist heresy, by the way. Science's Devil's position on genetics gets proven with modern understanding of genetics, while Mendeloid dogmatist have to twist in knots to continue to pretend that Lysenko was 100% wrong and fake. They've already had to concede, rather painfully, that Lysenko was an able administrator, and now their citadel of Lysenko being a hack is under pressure from the scientific community itself
>>2497839The Copenhagen interpretation is an anti-materialist bourgeois psyop.
>>2497909you are welcome to criticise Copenhagen interpretation in
>>2496589 >>2497839So, where's the cause and where's the effect? According to christian flag, there's always cause and effect
>>2497907>you agree that most traits arent neatly attributed to individual genes in isolationLike all other pseudo science peddlers, Lysenkoids constantly pivot away from their original claims and try to play word games instead.
Traits are the results of genes (certain DNA segments), which will be inherited by offspring. Changes in genes do not happen due to the intent, but due to random mutations that may be may not be beneficial.
Is this controversial for you?
>inb4 anon thinks epigenetics means Lamarckian evolution >>2497913Cause and effect only makes sense wih a time evolving system.
The cause: the gravitational forces on each of the three bodies at this very instant
The effect: the resulting movement of the three bodies in the very next instant
If anything, the existance of gravitational waves is further consolidation of causality
>>2497811Anything multiplied by infinity is infinite. Thats why
>>2497935Causality still exists at the quantum level. You can't predict when an unstable nucleus will decay or guarantee with 100% certainty that it ever will decay, but you can know that the unbalanced forces within the nucleus cause it to have a certain non-zero probability of decaying at any given instant in time.
>>2497811mathematicians are nasty bitches who say shit like "well there's different infinities, like the one that is affected by multiplication and another that isn't"
>>2497811>>2497950>>2497974Infinity is not a number. Infinity is a concept, not a fixed value. You can't do arithmetic with infinity.
>>2497976Depending on what branch of math you're in you treat it relatively like a number eg. transfinites.
>>2497995we consider only proletarian mathematics here. non of that aleph-naught degeneracy.
>>2497976Infinity is a number. And you can do arithmetics with inifinity. 10 + infinity is laarger than 5 + infinity
>>2498131Are we just going to ignore Hilbert's hotel then?
>>2498131wrong.
infinity + 10 or infinity + 5 has no meaning at all. It's like saying 'god + 5 + an apple'.
>>2498263<In order to understand how it is possible to tackle the situations discussed above in accordance with the principle “the part is less than the whole” let us consider a study published in Science (see [8]) where the author describes a primitive tribe living in Amazonia – Pirahã – that uses a very simple numeral system for counting: one, two, many. For Pirahã, all quantities larger than two are just “many” and such operations as 2+2 and 2+1 give the same result, i.e., “many”. Using their weak numeral system Pirahã are not able to see, for instance, numbers 3, 4, 5, and 6, to execute arithmetical operations with them, and, in general, to say anything about these numbers because in their language there are neither words nor concepts for that. Moreover, the weakness of Pirahã’s numeral system leads to such results as
< “many”+1 = “many”, “many”+2 = “many”,
< which are very familiar to us in the context of views on infinity used in the traditional calculus
< ∞+1 = ∞, ∞+2 = ∞.
<These observations lead us to the following idea: Probably our difficulty in working with infinity is not really connected to the nature of infinity but is a result of inadequate numeral systems used to express infinite numbers. Analogously, Pirahã are not able to distinguish numbers 3 and 4 not due to the nature of these numbers but due to the weakness of the numeral system that Pirahã use. >>2497864>his agronomy techniquesweird way to spell Russian peasants
>>2497933>pivot away from their original claims >>2497862>mendels experiments dont hold for the vast majority of traitstry to keep up
>Traits are the results of genes (certain DNA segments), which will be inherited by offspring. this hasn't been the mainstream view for decades now its outdated and simplified
>Changes in genes do not happen due to the intentliterally no one claimed this. Changes happen for many reasons and one of this is interaction with the environment.
>due to random mutationsThis is the core claim and it is false. Changes are NOT always random. Epigenetics does in fact mean organisms inherit acquired traits
>>2495123Democritus was writing about something completely different. He was making, roughly, a version of Zeno's paradox, where you cannot split some object into infinitesimal parts without the universe imploding. It was an argument about abstract thought, rather than an argument about substance which didn't have any necessary "fundamental particle". Substance was simply a proposition, unless you get into substantive monism. Nothing about Democritus suggests the "particle" in question had to be a speck of something if it were about substance. Put another way, he's making an argument about what a "point" is in mathematics.
>>2496796Sex happened in every complex life-form in one way or another because complex life-forms themselves weren't "unitary". It would be quite impossible to create an animal of any complexity by asexual reproduction or splitting. The recombination of material was just a side-effect of what would have been required for anything like "sex" to happen in the universe between two distinguishable but compatible animals, where one fertilizes the eggs and the other produces eggs.
You see how insane this becomes when "the struggle for life" is naturalized and presumed to guide history to "make it so?" Pure ideology. Pure Satanism.
I see the retard brigade is adding in their takes where vernalization is some sort of magic genetic spell (wtf?) Someone needs their fag talking points to discredit any critics of Eugenics. That's what this Satanic forum does.
>>2497791I'm not even touching this spooky faggotry. Dialectics makes humans insane.
>>2497845DNA is residue. It's what comes after the cell forms, not what "causes" the cell. God damn this is all so fucking Germanic and retarded.
>>2497868Even more Germanness. Ugh.
>>2498437>this hasn't been the mainstream view for decades now its outdated and simplified They sure base their religion around this tenet and insist it's totally that way, reality be damned.
If their theories had any merit you would be able to very trivially engineer life, much like a computer program is assembled. Fabricating all of the parts of a cell, even a clunky version of it, would make it possible to "prove the theory"… except life doesn't work that way and never did, and they don't know anything about anything. All of it becomes an obsession to find the "master weapon" or key that gives them Real Ultimate Power.
>>2498273>is a result of inadequate numeral systems used to express infinite numbers.No numeral system could ever express an infinite quantity in any meaningful way.
>>2498437>mendels experiments dont hold for the vast majority of traitsplease tell which traits you are thinking of and how Lysenko explained them better, I could use a good laugh
>outdated and simplified<never explains howpseud
>Changes happen for many reasons and one of this is interaction with the environmentCaused by the environment, as in radiotion or other mutagenic influences causing random mutations or are you saying that the genes react to environmental changes with specific mutations?
>Epigenetics does in fact mean organisms inherit acquired traitsHA! Called it. Epigenetics is about alterations to how the already existing genes are expressed. It doesn't change the DNA, it just changes which segments are transcribed. This doesn't create new genes it only reorganizes which pre existing genes are expressed. The creation of novel traits requires Darwinian Evolution.
>>2498530>Sex happened in every complex life-formThere are multiple vertebrates that can reproduce asexually. Besides allowing the spread of beneficial mutations, sex also helps to surpress the effect of harmful mutations, given that it occurs within a broad genepool with no or minimal imbreeding.
The british royal families history of hemophilia for example, is caused by a single mutation, that could have been completly breed out in a few generations, if it weren't for the incestuous tendencies of monarchs.
Another argument for the use of sex being the spreading of beneficial mutation is bacterial sex or conjugation. Single celled organisms don't reproduce sexually and yet many of them have evolved methods of exchanching their genetic material.
>DNA is residue. It's what comes after the cell forms, not what "causes" the cellI am afraid our current undertsanding of abiogenesis tells a very different story.
>If their theories had any merit you would be able to very trivially engineer lifeThe problem of purely synthetic life is not an understanding of life itself, it is rather the technical challenge of arranging a bunch of molecules with pin point accuracy. This field of research is also very controversial, due to its potential use in the creation of bio weapons.
>>2498690Dear god eugenics cultists believe they are always on the verge of discovering magic. You do not think about anything that is in front of you. It's insufferable and Satanic and disgusting.
Let me make this easier. You can "sequence a genome" very easily with current computers. If you had that, and all of this has been "decoded" for various animals, you would be able to predict what the material "does"… except the material doesn't do anything, because it's not a driver and never was. DNA is residue that is linked to the observed qualities that are more or less inborn (yet it can be "damaged" somehow because eugenist magical thinking). You have to say the effect is the cause to believe in this. It's pure circular thinking and insanity that this has gone on for nearly 100 years, and at the start there were scientists who knew this was a bunch of shit.
Heredity would basically be a non-issue if DNA worked that way, or if there were any "hereditary building blocks" that could be found. The material involved is generated from the father and mother "as they are" for each offspring, since everything the gonads do is active and responding to its real conditions rather than what they are "supposed" to do. The smallest sperm and egg are still living entities themselves rather than "information carriers". Conception is a real event, not a casting of some spell. And that gets back to why sex probably originated in natural history; that it came about in the first place because two compatible life-forms could cooperate in some deliberate way, rather than "meet randomly" as the eugenist theory requires for its claims about heredity to remain true.
The far far far more likely case is that "hereditary virtues" don't exist in the seed material in the way that is insinuated. All of that seed information is woefully incomplete. It would tell roughly what the frame of the body would be, but all of the things that allow an actual life-form to exist are developmental. You could pick a sperm and auygh but you'd probably be disappointed at the results if you think you can edit life perfectly. All you can do is vaguely guess which swimmers are fitter or better, and they actually believe this is "above God".
>>2498749>satanic>eugenicsWhy accuse me of secretly having those ideological alignments? Why can't I just be wrong?
>except the material doesn't do anythingwatch this short vid, it will give you a quick primer on what the material is for
>You have to say the effect is the cause to believe in thisWhat came first, the chicken or the egg?
>it came about in the first place because two compatible life-forms could cooperate in some deliberate way, rather than "meet randomly"Like ensuring the distribution of beneficial mutations perhaps? Not sure what point you are even trying to make here, but who does sexual reproduction without courtship and mating factor into this? Many marine organisms like sea urchins simply release their reproductive cells into the water and let the current take care of fertilization. Plants also have no control over which plants their pollen will reach via wind or pollinator. And what about sexual encounters that aren't mutually beneficial for both parties. Many male arachnids are likely to be eaten by the female.
>>2498761Again, no idea what this means, but you have an amazing brain my friend, is there any social media I can follow you on?
>>2498273but we have come up with far more rigorous methods of dealing with infinite numbers. People went through the effort of differentiating between scales of infinities and the like.
>>2498690>and how Lysenko explained them betterthis was never claimed
>It doesn't change the DNAnor this
>The creation of novel traits requires Darwinian Evolution.not in dispute
>>2498749Very interesting points, I'm pretty ignorant about DNA and never even thought about it that way. I was always led to believe that DNA is "the fundamental building blocks of life" but an organism is not a machine assembled according to some blueprint; it is a natural formation that emerges as a result of a bunch of chemical reactions and interacting forces.
We talk about DNA being "damaged" i.e. undergoes mutation, but mutation is essential to what DNA is and how it works, the reason organisms can evolve is because DNA does not make a perfect exact copy of itself every time, it occasionally and randomly makes "errors" (a better word would be inconsistencies) in replication and thus we have complex evolved life. What causes things like cancer and birth defects is the same thing that makes life possible to begin with.
>>2498690>>2498861this assumptive bullshit is really irritating. you are not teaching people things dont already know or even addressing the content of the thread in any way. the modern understanding of genetics does not refute lysenko. it confirms him. what has been in dispute this whole time is the mainstream understanding mendelian genetics of the 1930s which was incorrect. it is not lysenkoists that are pivoting but people defending a bunk theory with modern research that doesn't isn't even on the same topic. lysenko died in 50 years ago of course he was not disputing todays understanding. the answers to your inane rambling have already been posted but you just skip right past them.
>>2498749>Writing in the New York Review of Books, Gould has characterized the gene-centered perspective as confusing book-keeping with causality. Gould views selection as working on many levels, and has called attention to a hierarchical perspective of selection. Gould also called the claims of Selfish Gene "strict adaptationism", "ultra-Darwinism", and "Darwinian fundamentalism", describing them as excessively "reductionist". He saw the theory as leading to a simplistic "algorithmic" theory of evolution, or even to the re-introduction of a teleological principle.[37] Mayr went so far as to say "Dawkins' basic theory of the gene being the object of evolution is totally non-Darwinian."[38]
>Gould also addressed the issue of selfish genes in his essay "Caring groups and selfish genes".[39] Gould acknowledged that Dawkins was not imputing conscious action to genes, but simply using a shorthand metaphor commonly found in evolutionary writings. To Gould, the fatal flaw was that "no matter how much power Dawkins wishes to assign to genes, there is one thing that he cannot give them – direct visibility to natural selection."[39] Rather, the unit of selection is the phenotype, not the genotype, because it is phenotypes that interact with the environment at the natural-selection interface. So, in Kim Sterelny's summation of Gould's view, "gene differences do not cause evolutionary changes in populations, they register those changes."[40] the claim in dispute is not a genetic one, but a question of selecting for novel traits. the mainstream view was that novel traits cannot be produced through human intervention. not that "genes react to environmental changes with specific mutations" but that species do, not individuals, but populations, and this technique can produce novel phenotypic variance useful to human needs.
the same principle debunks social darwinism, as survival of the fittest does not refer to individuals but species, that is again, populations.
where as the opposing side that lysenko was in dispute with claimed that one phenotype corresponds to one gene, a single sequence of DNA, and that novel traits can only be produced randomly by radiation of cosmic rays. this is obviously false on multiple levels.
the germline is not immortal and the weismann barrier does not hold. epigenetics IS inheritance of acquired characteristics. characteristics are phenotype expression, not genetic code. attempting to say that its not inheritance of acquired characteristics because the genes dont change is moving the goalposts. characteristics are still acquired through inheritance. the environment clearly effects heredity even if it doesn't change genes.
lysenko being broadly correct while wrong about certain specifics never meant we throw genetics in the trash and go full in on nurture being everything. i really hope we dont have supposed "marxists" coming in here hard on the side of genetic determinism in the nature vs nurture debate when its been clear for decades that phenotypic expression is determined by a dialectical(reciprocal if you prefer) relationship between the genome and its environment.
this has always been the critique of "bourgeois science" and why people say its eugenics. its not wrong because of a difference in preference for levels of abstraction but fundamentally wrong because it is reductionist. you can abstract at any level while accounting for reintegration into the whole but the impulse of bourgeois science is to do the opposite, to abstract objects and entities and individual parts completely isolated from the whole, for the purpose of quantifying them for accounting purposes as commodities for the market, and from this emerges a whole set of idealisms like "rational actors" and "rugged individuals" and other nonsense.
to conclude that inheritance is fundamentally random while remaining philosophically consistent you would have to exclude the possibility of social revolution.
>>2499014>the impulse of bourgeois science is to do the opposite, to abstract objects and entities and individual parts completely isolated from the wholeThis 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>naughtbrit 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.
>>2498998babbling 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 irritatingbro you (or your side) is literally calling people "Satanic" and crashing out like a bunch of clericalists. Maybe stop projecting.
>>2499072that 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 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.
>>2499099Scroll 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
>>2499227>>2499255do not derail the scientific thread please. Thank you.
>>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 >>2499407every time I press you, it always ends up being schizo babble about everyone you don't like being eugenicists
>>2498749didn't read+ your idealist lmao
>>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
>>2499449His 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.
>>2499571And vernalisation?
>>2499612pre existing set of methods used by Russian peasantry long before Lysenko
>>2499623And 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 Darwini 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 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.
>>2499834>This only makes sense ifi just dont see why we reject lysenko and uphold others if darwin mendel and wiesmann were equally wrong
>>2499843Yeap this is the entire contention, everything beyond this is shitposting on my part at least
>>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.
>>2500647Lysenko 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.
>>2500672the 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
>>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
>>2500737I respect your commitment to talk to these idiots
>>2500708>probably because he didnt claim thatYeah 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.
>>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.
>>2502462That would be Lamarckian evolution. According to Lysenkoism a human who climbs a lot could give birth to a monkey.
Idiotic as aryan physics
>>2499138Dude, you can get "blue rose" analog of wheat, because wheat's genome is fucking massive and contains all kinds of shit.
To illustrate, look up that foul-smelling rafflesia flower, whose' genome contains all kinds of shit from all over the place from other species. Funnily enough, there was more research into rafflesia done on that front than on wheat, humanity's staple food. That's why everyone's been pointing fingers at mendeloids. Mendeloids can deny reality however much they want, but baseline Mendeloid model was WRONG IN PRACTICE. THERE WAS PRACTICAL EVIDENCE that Mendeloid model of inheritance didn't actually explain WHOLE THING. More than that, the instinctively true idea that not a single gene but rather a multiple genes and the external simuli is how traits manifest, was adopted by modern science, not the Mendeloid absolutist crap with fixed inheritance rates and what else.
Furthermore, modern genetic therapy IN PRACTICE proves that genes can be, in fact, influenced by the environment
>>2493029>AES nation>no such thing currently existsUnironically true. But Lysenko was retarded.
>>2492933Lysenko was a Quack, and Maoist China saw through his Reactionary Crypto-Christian Creationist Anti-Materialist Bullshit, and promoting him was one of the only mistakes Stalin made, as Mendelian Genetics, Molecular Genetics, and Evolution through Natural Selection, are Dialectical Materialist realities that must be accepted by Real Communists (Marxist-Leninist-Maoists), as any attempt to reject them will inevitably lead you down the Creationist Road of White Settler Christian Zionist Nationalist Fascist Evangelical Protestant Homophobic Transphobic Patriarchal Sexist Racist Fundamentalist Theocracy, with the field of Population Genetics being especially important for determining the precise origins of all the Nations/Ethnic groups that will each get their own SSR in the future Global USSR, based on the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principle of Self-Determination of all Oppressed Nations in their own SSR as articulated in Stalin’s “Marxism and the National Question”
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1913/03a.htm and Lenin’s “The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm , along with the National Delimitation Policy of the USSR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_delimitation_in_the_Soviet_Union , ✊😜🇨🇳🇰🇵🇨🇺🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️🚀☢️!
A classic example of modern Population Genetics are the first 4 In-depth Charts of Autosomal DNA Ancestry Components associated with various Indo-European Ethno-Linguistic groups/subdivisions (ie. Germanic, Slavic, Italic/Romance, Celtic, Baltic, Graeco-Albanian/Balkanic, Armenian, Iranian, Indo-Aryan, etc.) across various Indo-European and Non-Indo-European speaking populations in Europe, West Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, Siberia, and the Americas, in comparison to various Autosomal DNA Ancestry Components associated with Non-Indo-European Ethno-Linguistic groups/subdivisions, along with a Chart of the Autosomal DNA Ancestry Makeup of each of the Indo-European and Non-Indo-European Ethno-Linguistic groups/subdivisions shown in the first 4 Charts, based on the proportion of Indo-European Steppe and Non-Steppe Autosomal DNA Ancestry Components, with all of these charts coming from the same video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FJaTRFojJg of “The History of Indo-European Peoples, Languages and Ancestry from 5000 BC to 2025 AD” that cites 33 Academic articles published on Population Genetics, ✊😜🧬!
>>2497368They're either trolls or morons who view the lworld purely as a teamsport
>>2523226
Genetic engineering is not the same thing as Eugenics. You don't know what you're talking about.
>>2523214Lysenkoism does not go against 'Mendelian Genetics, Molecular Genetics, and Evolution through Natural Selection'.
>>2523226
>eugenics are real guys!!!1
Did you know that twin experiments were proven to be false, right? Without twins experiment, there is no basis for "intelligence" difference, the only real thing that matters between human races. And, thus, eugenics is a useless idea
Unique IPs: 91