Trofim Lysenko, the director of Soviet biology under Stalin, promoted the idea that the characteristics of plants and animals could be altered by their environment, and that these acquired traits could be inherited. This directly contradicted basic genetics, which were denounced as "bourgeois" or "capitalist" science. Joseph Stalin was directly responsible for the imprisonment, execution, and persecution of thousands of researchers and scientists who disagreed with Trofim Lysenko's nonsensical theories.
Why did he do this? Did he do this? This is not bait, I am fully serious and curious about history.
>>2617853You claim this is not bait yet you open up with soviet atrocity porn straight out some alphabet agencies' think tank
Why?
>>2617860I thought this was documented history, please enlighten me
>>2617862Enlighten you? How about reading a book first then making a thread?
>>2617863The burden of proof is on you, since you're the one claiming this didn't happen
>>2617864Kill yourself anticommunist scum
>>2617866Ad hominem. And here I thought the people writing entire paragraphs would be a little more tolerant and intelligent
>>2617868Womp womp faggot
epigenetics
>>2617853Discovery of hereditary epigenetics make him a little less example of pseudo science but hes still wrong about genetics overall.
There is a whole ass thread with 300+ posts on Comrade Scientist Trofim Lysenko. →
>>2492933>>2617853>Why did he do this?cause he knew he was right?
Because the theory of genetics was still just a theory at the time and one that swiftly became the basis of Eugenics, which is bourgeois and capitalist science. So really, it would have been nice if genetics could be disproven, because that would undermine the foundations of a certain political movement of particular interest to the Soviets in Germany at the time.
>>2617913Of course the anarchocum decides to protect rabid anticommunism.
>>2617853Not this thread again, it is like every week there will be a Lysenko thread, why can't you talk about Doi Moi reforms, or Semiconductor manufacturing in GDR or any achievement of Czechoslovakia but no you won't
To answer your question
>yes he was wrong about genetics>yes Stalin blindly believed him>yes it caused deaths>>why Lysenko did this?Cause he stuck to his own ideas like a upstart and didn't evaluated his own theories which is bad science.
Thank you and fuck off.
>>2617853Why do you people want to chat about this literally who multiple times a year?
How does it get us any closer to liberation?
How does it have any implications upon our current movement?
I'd tell the jannies to clean it up but it appears they think they're above cleaning these days.
>>2618273The current topic of this thread is the one I presented, and I made this thread to hear other people's opinions and arguments. I could care less if you're a hostile, parasocial loser who lurks around on imageboards all day and reads the same sentences over and over again, because that is bound to happen with enough time.
>>2618140I will, if I have time
>>2618516>I could care lessAh so then you DO care at least a small amount?
>>2618242Not an anarchist. Rule 11 rides again!
>>2618535I don't care about how you feel in particular
Lysenko was a reactionary,wrecker,idealist and opportunist whose greatest contribution is that reactionaries,wreckers,opportunists and idealists will tell on themselves by glazing him to this day. If you want weed these incompetents out of your org just see who glazes Lysenko.
>promoted the idea that the characteristics of plants and animals could be altered by their environment, and that these acquired traits could be inherited.
This has been shown to be true in many instances. One's heritable traits can be altered to some extent.
>This directly contradicted basic genetics, which were denounced as "bourgeois" or "capitalist" science.
Genetics then was not the more nuanced genetics we know now. Keep in mind this is before the discovery of DNA, epigenetics, our current understanding of gene expression. Genetics at this time was a vehicle for "scientific" racism and eugenics, arguing that the class and social hierarchies that existed in bourgeois society were genetically inherited in some way (e.g. Black people are poor because they were born stupid) and that undesirable traits (Black/indigenous/Chinan@/lumpen people) can/should be culled. Genetics had the historic luck of DNA being discovered in the West, where that discovery could be twisted at the time to "vindicate" bourgeois genetics. However the slander and death of Lysenkoism, and subsequent forcing of all political wings of biology into genetics, had the dual feature of forcing genetics to become a real science and accommodate the more nuanced reality of gene expression and inheritance.
>>2619517Hello Herr Himmler
How are you spending NYE?
>>2617864if I say you molest children, and you say it never happened, is the burden of proof on me to prove you are guilty, or is it on you to prove that you are not guilty?
>>2619517I promise you nobody in an org doing work is thinking about a long dead russian scientist who was wrong or whatever.
>>2619526reading to my kids to give them an unfair advantage over idealistic anti-materialists
>>2618177>Discovery of hereditary epigenetics make him a little less example of pseudo science but hes still wrong about genetics overall.Correct. But I will add that just because you are proven right about something later on doesn't mean you are "less" pseudoscientific, and more that you just guessed right. For example, a person not being scientific at all (like Democritus) might "guess" at the existence of something that turns out to be real (like atoms) but their vindication comes with so many caveats (Democritus's proposed atoms are very different from real atoms) that it matters not that you were "right" at the end of the day.
fixed a typo >>2619528I have a better question. Should we imprison anyone who is accused of something, even without solid evidence to back it up?
And if you mean to tell me that his statement isn't fallacious because he's refuting rather than confirming, the fallacy isn't based on that, rather if the one who makes the claim provides the evidence or not, so your example is invalid
Genetics is fake retarded nonsense.
DNA is a radio receiver/transmitter. DNA "code" is there to modify the shape of it, like an antenna. The DNA guy was a big friend of Jeffrey Epstein.
Lysenko was right and was repressed by the inquisitiors of the religion of anglo-rockefeller mechanistic garbage.
Unique IPs: 19