What do you think is the logical consequence of believing in this kind of idealism? Do you pick and choose to be a materialist only when it suits you?
A connection between the variability of traits and differences in the conditions of the habitat of living organisms was noticed rather quickly. For example, similar plants growing in different climatic zones could have different growing seasons. Fish that lived in underwater caves see worse than fish near the surface of the water. The adaptive nature of variability was also noted - for example, the giraffe's long neck allowed it to get food from tall trees.
A number of prominent biologists and breeders believed that changes in living conditions have an impact on heredity. The outstanding naturalist of the 19th century Charles Darwin (1809 - 1882) wrote: "Changed conditions cause inherited consequences, for example, a change in the period of flowering of plants transferred from one climate to another." The famous American breeder L. Burbank (1849 - 1926), who bred more than 800 new varieties of plants, believed that “every plant form that exists on our earth more or less changes and has always changed under the influence of the environment."
He gave the following example of the influence of living conditions on the change in hereditary properties: We have a plant - sea radish. Initially, she spent a significant portion of her strength on seeds. It should not be forgotten that the formation of seeds requires an enormous expenditure of juices and vital energy from the plant. But the sea radish was more and more taken out of the rhizomes, so that, in the end, it stopped giving seeds. " A similar example was given by a modern specialist in seed production, Doctor of Agricultural Sciences P.F. arrow (gave seeds), but, propagated in a number of generations vegetatively, he lost the ability to form seeds.
At the beginning of the 19th century J.-B. Lamarck (1744 - 1829) hypothesized the cause of the variability. He suggested that living organisms are capable of transmitting to descendants some traits acquired by them during their lifetime. "If circumstances lead to the fact that the state of individuals becomes for them normal and constant, then the internal organization of such individuals, in the end, changes. The offspring resulting from the crossing of such individuals retains the acquired changes and, as a result, a breed is formed that is very different from the one whose individuals all the time were in conditions favorable for their development ".
This idea is called the inheritance of acquired traits. Lamarck himself related his assumption more to changes in the body, which were the results of his own actions: exercise and non-exercise of organs, changes in diet, etc. His followers, supporters of the idea of inheritance of acquired traits, called Lamarckists, focused on the changes in the body that occurred under the influence of the external environment. They attributed the possibility of inheriting acquired traits only to adaptive (adaptive) and natural, caused by natural causes (and not, for example, injuries) changes in the body.
The concept of inheritance of acquired traits was supported by many prominent naturalists and biologists of the 19th-20th centuries: C. Darwin, K.A. Timiryazev, I. V. Michurin, L. Burbank and others. For example, Darwin wrote: “In animals, hard work or non-use of some organs has a significant effect; for example, I noticed that in the domestic duck the wing bones weigh less, and the leg bones are more in relation to the entire skeleton, than the same bones in the wild ducks, and this difference can be confidently attributed to the fact that the domestic duck flies much less and walks more than its wild ancestors … Significant inherited udder development in cows and goats in those countries where these animals are usually milked, compared to animals in other countries, is probably another example of the consequences of an active work of the body ". Darwin also proposed a certain mechanism of the influence of body changes on the genetic apparatus: somatic cells, which had changed under the influence of adaptive reactions, excreted some "gemmules" or "pangens" carrying hereditary properties. Timiryazev also argued that "in relation to plants, Lamarck stood on a strictly scientific basis of facts, and the thoughts expressed by him retained their full significance at the present time. He considered the source of changes in plants solely to be the influence of external conditions - the environment." Similarly, Michurin argued that “not only properties and qualities inherent in producing plants are hereditarily transmitted to offspring, but also those forcibly made by man changes in the structure of the plant organism are also transmitted in many cases and, moreover, in rather sharp forms, which are so often used by us in gardening. "Burbank said:" The inheritance of acquired traits exists, or I do not know anything about the life of plants … A need in an animal or plant can cause a function, and this function can create or creates an organ that facilitates it performance. For me, after my work, the correctness of this theory is beyond doubt. "
Lysenko believed that between the laws of different sciences there is a certain hierarchy corresponding to the hierarchy of the levels of matter (motion) described by these laws: chemistry ^ physics ^ biology ^. The laws that determine the organization of matter at a higher level have a higher status (more valuable for human practice) and are not expressed through the laws that determine the organization of matter at a lower level. In particular, Lysenko emphasized that biology cannot be reduced to either physics or chemistry; that biophysical and biochemical laws, although they help biology, have a lower status in it than the biological laws of growth and development of living organisms. Biological phenomena are not the "mechanical sum" of physical movements or chemical reactions; they represent the next higher level of movement. Revealing, what chemical reactions accompany or even cause certain phenomena in the world of the living, we cannot say that we have “reduced biology to chemistry”; biology is not chemistry or physics.
"Biological science cannot be reduced, its core can only be reduced to chemical and physical phenomena occurring in living bodies … I fully agree that without the corresponding development of chemistry and physics as sciences, biology as a science would be impossible. But this does not mean that biology as a science is reduced to the chemistry and physics of living things … Biological science must reveal biological laws, the laws by which biological objects arise, live and develop … The correct formula is that without the corresponding development of the chemistry and physics of living bodies, biology itself is impossible as a science , does not mean that biology is chemistry and physics … Biological laws are not physical, chemical or mathematical laws, but biological "
These arguments of Lysenko illustrate the relationship between the laws of mechanics - the laws of motion of physical bodies - and the laws of chemistry - the laws of molecular interactions, or quantum physics - interactions and transformations of elementary particles. Although physical bodies consist of molecules, atoms, elementary particles, the laws of mechanics are not derived from chemistry or quantum physics.
The laws of physics - the laws of motion of physical bodies - express the physical essence of these bodies; the laws of chemistry - the laws of interaction between molecules - express their chemical essence. Similarly, the laws of development of living organisms express their biological essence, which is not reducible to chemistry and physics.
"A good chemist will not express a biological essence in chemical language … In a simplified way, researchers who, having found or, more often than not, only making attempts to find changes in the chemical reaction of a plant at a particular stage of development, think that they have already opened the very deep “essence” of vernalization, light stage, etc. Chemical indicators of stages are only one of many indicators, and although they are certainly essential, they are still far from the “last essence of life.” We are for the study of chemical, physical , morphological and any other indicators of development. But we are against reducing the essence of stage development to these indicators. And we, first of all, support the study of developmental biology, the study of the specifics of biological relations "
Living organisms develop in accordance with their heredity and under certain conditions in the external environment. Therefore, for the understanding of biological laws, that is, the laws of development of living organisms, the primary role is played by the study of the influence on them of changes in living conditions - and not the study of the effects of alien substances that are not required for development - for example, chemical or radioactive - substances. Michurinsk biology, developmental biology, developed by Lysenko and his colleagues, just drew attention to the change in the development of organisms when their living conditions change. We can say that developmental biology studied the "biological trajectory" of the growth-development of living organisms, in the same way as mechanics studied the trajectory of "material bodies" in physical space. Studying the behavior of this "
Heredity, as a biological property (the property of "a being, not a substance"), also had to be studied, first of all, by biological, and not by physical or chemical methods. The search for the biological laws of heredity, according to Lysenko, should have been carried out by studying the influence on it of changes in the conditions of life.
The laws of interaction of living organisms, including their "hereditary basis", with their living conditions were the main subject of study in Michurin biology, developmental biology.
Both processes - both the development of the organism and the formation of its hereditary basis - were considered by Lysenko as interdependent and reciprocal; he figuratively represented them as simultaneous spiral unwinding and twisting. "Figuratively speaking, the development of an organism is like unwinding the inside spiral, swirling in previous generations. This breakout is simultaneously screwing for future generations"
No psychiatrist says anything about "brain diseases", which (a) would be neurology anyway, and (b) would undermine the claims of psychiatry which concern behavior rather than particular organs. Psychiatry goes out of its way to discount physical, neurological causes in diagnosis, because if there is something physical you would treat the physical problem rather than enforcing a political program. When a psychiatrist prescribes a drug, it is specifically to influence behavior in some way that is desirable for political purposes. You don't really get into psychiatric care unless you're forced into it, or get roped into it by someone else.>>494640
Yep, and so is the black legend around Lysenko.
Based Anon preaching the Lysenkoist truth.
Funny how it's only China that didn't abandon Lysenko in the world (don't know enough about other AES to really talk), and all the articles in defence of Lysenko in the West are penned by chinese academics. Almost like chinese viewed anti-lysenkoism as a part of de-stalinization, so, a purge of scientists due to political reasons.
>>494768>The laws that determine the organization of matter at a higher level have a higher status (more valuable for human practice) and are not expressed through the laws that determine the organization of matter at a lower level. In particular, Lysenko emphasized that biology cannot be reduced to either physics or chemistry; that biophysical and biochemical laws, although they help biology, have a lower status in it than the biological laws of growth and development of living organisms. Biological phenomena are not the "mechanical sum" of physical movements or chemical reactions; they represent the next higher level of movement. Revealing, what chemical reactions accompany or even cause certain phenomena in the world of the living, we cannot say that we have “reduced biology to chemistry”; biology is not chemistry or physics.
Lysenko is doing cringe bickering, about his scientific field being more important then somebody else's, he also is wrong to demote physics and chemistry to the lower levels that have nothing to contribute to biology:
Evolution is change over time. More specifically, it is changes within a biological population over successive generations. Ultimately, biological complexity is one of the most important things to come out of evolution. Things started simple. Then genes mutated, cells interacted with their environment, mitochondria stopped being living organisms and started being part of a cell and complex life. We know where the complexity of life came from. We have elephants, and snakes, viruses and the tardigrade because of evolution. But we don’t know where itself life came from.
Abiogenesis is the origin of life from non-living matter. And it has been a burning question for some time (since long before Darwin came up with the Theory of Evolution). But there may be an answer looming on the horizon.And this answer is surprisingly simple: Life is inevitable.
Physicists have argued that the occurrence of life is a matter of inevitability. The models that physicists have come up with are formulated on previously established theories in physics, and they conclude that matter will generally develop into systems that, when “driven by an external source of energy” and “surrounded by a heat bath,” become increasingly efficient at dissipating energy.
In order to understand the theory, you need to understand the second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of increasing entropy or the “arrow of time.” The second law states, “The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.” To put it very bluntly, entropy means that things fall apart. Hot things cool off, gas will diffuse through air, a house crumbles but does not instantaneously add on a new kitchen. Thus, as previously stated, things fall apart; they get more disordered; energy tends to diffuse as time progresses. Entropy is basically a measure of this tendency.
It is measuring how dispersed the energy is among the particles in a system, and how diffuse those particles are throughout space. This system is pretty disordered, therefore higher entropy. We know that, on the whole, entropy always increases because of a simple matter of probability: There are more ways for energy to be spread out than for it to be concentrated. Thus, as particles in a system move around and interact, they will, through sheer chance, tend to adopt configurations in which the energy is spread out.
Physicist Jeremy England explains, “We can show very simply the more likely evolutionary outcomes are going to be the ones that absorbed and dissipated more energy from the environment’s external drives on the way to getting there, for example, think about how the overall entropy of the universe increases during photosynthesis as the sunlight dissipates. If you shine a light for long enough time on a patch of dirt, eventually a plant will grow there because it's better at increasing entropy than just the patch of dirt alone.
>>494841>his scientific field being more important then somebody else's, he also is wrong to demote physics and chemistry to the lower levels
Hes not. He is pointing out that they are separate fields and respecting the differences, just like philosophy and physics. Where the fuck are you pulling these assumptions from? Why did you type 5 off topic paragraphs about science 101? Do you really think people don't already know all that? It comes off like you are typing a lot to try and demonstrate how much you know instead of engaging with the argument.
I'm not a gay ass lysenkoist, but it's nice to see actual debates here, this is why this place is better than /pol/ where the discussion would have degenerated into "Sneed" "seethe" "YWNBAW" and "dilate" one liners.
>>494768>In particular, Lysenko emphasized that biology cannot be reduced to either physics or chemistry; that biophysical and biochemical laws, although they help biology, have a lower status in it than the biological laws of growth and development of living organisms>Biological science must reveal biological laws, the laws by which biological objects arise, live and develop … The correct formula is that without the corresponding development of the chemistry and physics of living bodies, biology itself is impossible as a science , does not mean that biology is chemistry and physics … Biological laws are not physical, chemical or mathematical laws, but biological ">Heredity, as a biological property (the property of "a being, not a substance"), also had to be studied, first of all, by biological, and not by physical or chemical methods. The search for the biological laws of heredity, according to Lysenko, should have been carried out by studying the influence on it of changes in the conditions of life
Imagine actually believing that and calling yourself a materialist>>494850>Do you really think people don't already know all that?
You obviously don't
Nonmarxists should use flags or preface their statements with "I'm an idiot who doesn't understand dialectics but, "
I already tried reasoning with high school biology in earlier threads. It doesn't work, most of the Lysenkoists are Americans who never learned this in school.
>>494716> This is only visible macroscopically when we look at single-gene (Mendelian) traits
You undermine your entire argument with this qualifier. Most traits aren't monogenic especially not the ones that determine the differences between species, like wings instead of arms. Everything else you wrote and >>494893
here is a describing DNA as a chemical process that has nothing to do with biology or inheritance, which supports the post you are quoting.
>Recognizing the concept of "gene", Lysenko gave it a different meaning than his opponents. “Academician Serebrovsky is also wrong when he asserts that Lysenko denies the existence of genes … We deny the concept that you put into the word“ gene ”” (Agrobiology, p. 195). Since the property of heredity, according to Lysenko, was possessed not only by chromosomes, but also by other parts of the cell, he could not agree with the Weismannist idea of a "gene" - an internal factor of heredity - as a section of chromosomes, a "bead on a string of chromosomes." According to Lysenko, heredity and its factors were "smeared" throughout the cell.
oh and Lysenko was right, again
>>494850> He is pointing out that they are separate fields
That's wrong , and that's why I put 5 on-topic physics paragraphs in. To demonstrate that you can't neatly separate scientific fields.
Read the article from Jeremy Englandhttps://aeon.co/essays/does-the-flow-of-heat-help-us-understand-the-origin-of-life
Here is an easy introduction video to the thermodynamics of lifehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAZrpIMgCKk
Here is a more advanced video to the thermodynamics of lifehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciuVSKyM0cQ>>494851
when you can only think in terms of boxes
picture is for you
Why do you have to be so cringe and sneaky? Why cant you just outright say that you disagree with Lysenko because you think dialectics are wrong? Is it because you know openly disagreeing with Marxism will discredit you?
>>494918>If it isn't visible, it doesn't real
Genes code for proteins and RNAs. They don't directly code for macroscopic traits. Before knowledge of the existence of DNA, the fact that genes exist was only deducible from the specific case of monogenic traits, like in Mendel's experiments. That doesn't mean genes only exist, or genes are only inherited, if they determine monogenic traits. >especially not the ones that determine the differences between species, like wings instead of arms.
Actually, Hox genes code for things like this, because they are transcription factors. It's not impossible. By changing 1 gene we can get flies that grow legs instead of eyes, etc. Polygenic traits are usually things like height. And differences between species can be much less than this, and are subjective anyway. I don't see what your point is supposed to be with this statement, though. Inheritance exists and has a physical basis, which is DNA, and DNA contains genes, which are therefore inherited. A thing's inheritance has an effect on its phenotype, but of course this is not the only thing that determines phenotype. And genes are not the only things that are inherited, because stuff like DNA methylation can be passed down generations, as well as all the other non-genetic crap contained in DNA that is never transcribed and has no effect on phenotype (in fact, the majority of DNA). But none of this implies anything like "genes don't exist" or "genes are just a scholastic category". >Everything else you wrote and >>494893 (You) here is a describing DNA as a chemical process that has nothing to do with biology or inheritance, which supports the post you are quoting.
DNA is inherited, DNA contains genes. Genes are inherited. This is nothing but biology and inheritance. What is inheritance except for what is passed down from generation to generation?>>494905
Retards who haven't read a page of elemantary biology should also preface their statements with a similar qualifier.
You do realize that paraphrasing a textbook isn't an argument right? First you need to acknowledge what is being discussed, and then respond to it. Listing things you just read of wikipedia without context doesnt' mean anything.
Quick reminder for retards like you that Marx was a massive fanboy of Darwin and saw no contradiction between his Origin of Species and Dialectical Materialism.
>>494938> DNA is inherited, DNA contains genes. Genes are inherited. This is nothing but biology and inheritance. What is inheritance except for what is passed down from generation to generation?<Biology isn’t based on chemistry, you guys! Mitosis and meiosis do not describe chemical processes!
Look, the lysenkoists are trying to defend a guy who was wrong on a lot of issues but still made important contributions to science or set the seeds for studying those contributions, even if he was wrong in important ways. But you’re tumbling into lolcow territory
And Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which inspired Lysenko. Try reading the thread.
Where did I say biology isn't based on chemistry? What the fuck are you talking about? I'm just pointing out: genes are not just a scholastic concept, but have a real physical basis. Because there are people denying it in this thread.
Lysenkos theory of evolution both contradicts Lamarcks and Darwins theory of evolution. Instead of reading this thread you should actually read Lysenko, so you know what you are defending.
*Lamarcks and Darwins theories of evolution
of course they didn't share the same
Darwin, Lamarck, Michurin and Lysenko had similar/compatible views. Instead of reading wikipedia maybe you should read Darwin, so you know what you are defending.
>>494931>Your not addressing the topic
I'm criticizing Lysenko's premise that biology just sits on top of physics and chemistry as a self contained block of knowledge. That there is no basis for interdisciplinary exchange. That's why I'm posting all that stuff, to prove my point. >>494937
You don't need to agree with Lysenko to be a Marxist.
I think that the bits of Lysenko's theories that were correct are now called epigenetics.
To be honest I don't understand hegelian language. so i don't know if dialectics are wrong, it sounds like sophistry to me. Some of hegels philosophical concepts have better explanations like "to determine is to negate" is easier explained by Venn diagrams from set theory.
Tell me which works by Lysenko and which works by Darwin you have read and I will show you how they contradict each other
Well at least I tried to give you a chance to make your argument as strong as possible.
In Lysenkos 1950 Article 'New Developments in the Science of Biological Species', he states the following:>But Darwinism is based on one-sided and continuous evolutionism. Darwin's theory of evolution proceeds from a recognition of quantitative changes only: it refuses to take cognizance of the compulsory, law-governed nature of transformations, of transitions from one qualitative state to another. Yet without the conversion of one qualitative state into another, without the genesis of a new qualitative state within the old, there is no development but only increase or decrease of quantity, only what is usually called growth.>Darwinism firmly established in the science of biology the idea that organic forms have their origin in other such forms. However, development in living nature was conceived of by Darwinism as only a continuos, unbroken line of evolution. In biological science–precisely science and not practice–species therefore ceased to be considered as real, separate qualitative states of living nature.>Thus, in his Origin of Species, Darwin wrote:>"From these remarks it will be seen that I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience's sake,">K. A. Timiryazev wrote to the same effect: "Variety and species represent merely a difference in time. No line of demarcation is conceivable here.">Thus, according to the theory of Darwinism, there should be no natural border lines, no discontinuity between species in nature.>According to evolutionism the development of the organic world may be reduced to mere quantitative changes, without anything new being born within the old, without the development of a new quality, a different totality of properties. This theory holds that so great an interval of time is required for one species to arise from another that the entire history of the human race has not been long enough for the emergence of one species from another to be observed.>After all, organic nature has been in existence for aeons of time. One would therefore suppose that this "was ample time for a new species to arise from an old and that as a result of such prolonged changes the appearance, the birth of new species should be observable by now.>But the same theory declares that actually there should be no dividing line between the new, nascent species and the old, procreating species, for which research it is supposed to be altogether impossible to observe the generation of a new species within an old one.>In spite of the theory of gradualness throughout, which recognizes no break in development, no transition from one quality to another, and which therefore asserts that there can be no boundaries between species, such boundaries do exist in actual fact, and every naturalist has long been fully aware of this. Therefore Darwinism was forced to invent so-called intraspecific competition, intraspecific struggle, to explain the gap between species. According to this theory all intermediate forms, which, it is maintained, completely filled the gaps between the species and thus constituted an unbroken gradation of forms in organic nature, dropped out in the process of the struggle as being less adaptive.>Thus Darwin had recourse to the reactionary, pseudoscientific Malthusian doctrine of intraspecific struggle to gloss over the obvious incongruity between evolutionism and the real development of the plant and animal world. This struggle is supposedly called forth by the fact that always in nature more individuals of a given species are born than the conditions available for their existence permit. This is the basis on which Darwin built his so-called theory of divergence, i.e., divergence of characters, the appearance of breaks or discontinuities in the continuous range of organic forms, as a result of which easily distinguishable groups–species of plants and animals–are supposed to have arisen. Consequently, boundaries, breaks between closely related species, came about, according to Darwinism, not as a result of qualitative changes or the emergence of qualitatively new groups of organisms–species of plants or animals–but in consequence of a mechanical dropping out, of a mutual extermination of forms which are qualitatively indistinguishable and constitute an unbroken series.>This explains why all adherents of continuous evolutionism arrive at the conclusion that species in theory are not a result of the process of development of living nature discovered by science and practice but a convention employed for convenience in classification.>Thus a palpable contradiction has always existed and still exists between the theory of evolution and reality, i.e., the development of organic nature. Darwinism could therefore only explain somehow or other the development of the organic world. But the explanation given could not serve as an effective theoretical basis for practical transformation, could not supply the theoretical foundation for a planned alteration of living nature in the interests of practical life.>Although unable in his day to overcome Darwinism evolutionism in science, the eminent biologist K. A. Timiryazev, an ardent fighter against idealism and reaction in science, clearly perceived that species are not conventions but real phenomena of nature. He therefore wrote: "These border lines, these sundered links of the organic chain were not introduced by man into nature but forced upon him by nature. This real fact requires a real explanation.">But no such real explanation could be forthcoming from the standpoint of continuous evolutionism, and Timiryazev himself did not go beyond the erroneous Darwinian statement that this fact was the result of the supposed existence of intraspecific competition.>Only in our time and country, in the land of victorious Socialism, where dialectical materialism, developed in the works of Comrade Stalin, is the dominant world outlook, has it become possible to give a real explanation of real biological facts such as species. Kolkhoz-sovkhoz agriculture affords every opportunity for the unlimited development of materialist biological science, of Michurin's teaching–creative Darwinism. I. V. Michurin wrote: "We have as yet no correct exhaustive conception of how nature has created and still incessantly creates innumerable species of plants. At the present time it is of much greater benefit to us to realize that we have entered that stage of our historical development in which we are able personally to intervene in the actions of nature and, in the first place, can considerably accelerate and numerically increase the form building of new species, and, in the second place, artificially divert the building of their qualities in a direction more advantageous to man. We must furthermore appreciate the fact that such work, jointly performed by us and nature, represents progress of the highest order, of global significance. This will become evident to all from the results which the development of this undertaking will bring in the future–an undertaking powerfully impulsed by the Revolution that aroused millions of creative minds in the Land of Soviets. For here a considerable portion of the population has been given the opportunity to improve life round about by deliberate action.">Michurin's teaching, creative Darwinism, does not regard development as continuous evolution but as the genesis of a new quality within the old, of a quality that contradicts the old, which undergoes a gradual quantitative accumulation of its peculiar features and in the process of its struggle against the old quality constitutes itself into a new, fundamentally different totality of properties with its own distinct law of existence.>Dialectical materialism, developed and elevated to a new high plane by the works of Comrade Stalin, is the most valuable, most potent theoretical weapon in the hands of Soviet biologists, Michurinists, and this is the weapon they must use in solving the profound problems of biology, including the problem of the descent of one species from another.>In agricultural practice as well as in nature relative but quite definite boundaries between species have always existed. By relative but quite definite specific boundaries we mean that parallel with similarity between species there always exists specific distinctness, which divides organic nature into qualitatively distinguishable yet interlocking links, or species.>No continuous, unbroken series of forms between species–different, qualitatively definite states of living matter–can be found. This is so not because the intermediate forms in a continuous range have died out as a result of mutual competition, but because there is no such continuity in nature, nor can there be. Unbroken continuity does not exist in nature; continuity and discontinuity always form a unity.>A species is a distinct, qualitatively definite state of living matter. Definite intraspecific interrelations between individuals are an essential characteristic of each species of plant, animal and microorganism. These intraspecific interrelations differ qualitatively from the interrelations between individuals of different species. Therefore, the qualitative difference between intraspecific and interspecific interrelations is one of the most important criteria for distinguishing between species and varieties.>It is wrong to state that a variety is an incipient species and a species a sharply defined variety. For if this erroneous formulation were taken as the starting point it would follow that there is no qualitative difference, no line, between species and varieties and that the species is not a reality existing in nature but something contrived for convenience of classification, for systematics. Here, and of this mention has been made above, lies one of the basic contradictions between the theory of continuos evolutionism and the realities of the organic world. Varieties intermediate between species do not exist, not because these varieties dropped out in the process of an intraspecific struggle but because they never did and do not now arise in free nature.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lysenko/works/1950s/new.htm
As you can see Lysenko strongly disagreed with Darwins theory of evolution. Why did you lie about having read him?
Damn this is actually a pretty based thread, Imma request mods move it to /edu/ and archive it after it's all done and over with.
The point is that biology is more than the sum of chemistry and physics that go into it, as new and larger structures involve concepts that do not apply to chemistry - and vice versa, concepts of biology do not apply to chemistry or physics, and are not built in to the fundamental nature of the universe. You wouldn't speak of molecules or a large ball of gas as "living", with the same behaviors as life-forms.
>Life is inevitable
This is trite and basically amounts to "anything is inevitable". All evidence is that complex life is a freakishly uncommon occurrence. The theory of life's inevitability arises from modern systems theory using life itself as its basic model for all systems. It's basically becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it is not understanding why systems theory is a useful paradigm and takes it to be some sort of religion. Your post reeks of scientism. If there is life, there is always an explanation for its origin, and not just "DURRR INEVITABLE". This thinking places a demiurge outside of nature compelling the world to take particular forms, rather than the understanding that life would have arisen from prior conditions, of things and forces which we could account for. And once you do have life, you're speaking of systems with different functionality than mere chemicals or physics, that we can describe with language that is not appropriate to chemistry.
>>495131>Michurin's teaching, creative Darwinism,>>484377>>494967>similar/compatible views
thats a nice long quote, but you haven't demostrated how this is related to your point. Marxists.org has only two essays in their whole Lysenko "section", I suggest reading some of the books or websites linked in the thread. I was really expecting you to cross reference quotes with The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication
or On the Origin of Species
not just text dump, 360, and walk away. Disappointing.
Lysenko did disagree with Darwin on the specifics and the proportion of changes that were due to the environment, but he didn't reject his theory. We also didn't throw out Newton after relativity was discovered because science isn't about owning people epic style and cancelling them for getting one thing slightly incorrect.
Punctuated equilibrium(what Lysenko called sudden jumps in evolution) was actually found to be true and Darwin is still taught and considered the father of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium is an example of the transformation of quantity into quality which is one of the three Laws of Dialectics.
Oh gee, looks like Lysenko was right
You didn't give me any specific texts so I just picked the fastest and easiest to understand example, that demonstrates how Lysenko disagreed with Darwin. I gave you the chance to name any texts you wanted, but you couldn't do that because you are a lying retard who hasn't read shit. Anyway thanks for admitting that Darwinism and Lysenkoism aren't compatible.
Lysenko already describes Darwins position in the excerpt I posted, so why would you ask me to cite Darwin again on the same topic? Could it be that you also haven't read the quote I posted?>Lysenko did disagree with Darwin on the specifics and the proportion of changes that were due to the environment, but he didn't reject his theory
Yes he did. According to Darwin there are no direct borders between species (which our modern understanding of evolution confirms you absolut moron). Lysenko disagreed and believed in species being a metaphysical category, which he tried to prove by claiming he could turn wheat into rye.>science isn't about owning people epic style and cancelling them
Your Guru Lysenko seemed to disagree. >Muh Punctuated equilibrium
Punctuated equilibrium has nothing to do with Lysenkos jumps in evolution and fits a lot better with Darwins theory of Natural Selection. Think of it in the following way. The environment an organism inhabits, exerts certain selection pressures upon it. If the organism is already adapted to this environment and manages to reproduce, its offspring will all be slightly different variations of the parent due to random mutations. These variants now face the same selection pressures, leading to those less similar to their already well adapted parent, having a harder time surviving and reproducing. Thus if the environment remains stable, the species that inhabit it won't appear to change, despite random mutations still happening.
Lets say the environment suddenly changes. Now the variants that are similar to the parent will also struggle to survive. Most of the time this leads to the entire species going extinct. However random mutations may occur that bring forth variants who are a little better suited for the new environment. If despite all odds these few newcomers keep managing to reproduce, their offspring my also develop further mutations, making them even better suited for the new environment. Over many generations these changes accumulate until eventually their distant descendants are well adapted to the new environment and further changes are no longer beneficial.
Your supposed proof for Lysenkos sudden jumps in evolution completely falls flat, because it in no way contradicts Darwins concept that there are no borders between species. Also as an anon earlier pointed out, the existence of transitional fossils further disproves Lysenkos nonsense.
Unrelated to the actual discussion but still funny>not just text dump, 360, and walk away>360>and walk away
When Inrareddit sends its people, they're not sending their best
>>495872>Punctuated equilibrium has nothing to do with Lysenkos jumps in evolution and fits a lot better with Darwins theory of Natural Selection.
Wrong. You are just playing semantic games and definition mongering, again. Just because the Russian, German and English words aren't identical doesn't mean they were talking about different things.
>Over many generations these changes accumulate
Also wrong. When the environment changes suddenly there is a die off and the species bottlenecks through surviving variants that dominate the species in 2-4 generations.
> the existence of transitional fossils
Wrong. Transitional fossils are the exception and not representative of most species fossil records, as earlier pointed out. To prove smooth transitions between species as a rule you would have to show that the majority of species have smooth evolution, which is not supported by evidence.
Mutations are not random, that is psuedoscience.
did not read shit, but did lysenko really try and fail to turn one type of wheat into another? top kek
Yes and he totally succeeded. The Cia is trying to cover it up by purging rouge grain from wheatfields.
Wow. So he did it by planting in the fall and called it dialectical. Astounding
>>495957>the species bottlenecks through surviving variants
yes this also can be a factor, although it doesn't always happen. But How does that support your position? >Transitional fossils are the exception
Yes, this logically follows from what I wrote>not supported by evidence
I'd be thrilled to see your evidence for sudden jumps in evolution as Lysenko described them.>Mutations are not random, that is psuedoscience
TOP KEK! They really don't teach any Biology at Yankee schoolshttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788220/
>>497398> strongly supported the prediction that the phage-resistant mutations had a constant probability of occurring
so… not random
Complex systems are not "random" just because you can't describe them fully. We know exactly what the causes of mutations we just don't have the technology to control it yet so it is has no utility and is therefore not profitable.
Its really sad that you keep missing the point to reinforce and regurgite liberal dogma.
>The statement that mutations are random is both profoundly true and profoundly untrue at the same time. The true aspect of this statement stems from the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful.
> the idea that mutations are random can be regarded as untrue if one considers the fact that not all types of mutations occur with equal probability. Rather, some occur more frequently than others because they are favored by low-level biochemical reactions. These reactions are also the main reason why mutations are an inescapable property of any system that is capable of reproduction in the real world. https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetic-mutation-1127/
>>497406>so… not random
There is no link between the occurrence of these mutations and the presence of viruses. It follows that these mutations constantly have a chance of happening and are not a reaction to the viruses.
The second part of your post literally agrees with me.
I'm done. This is getting way to ridiculous even for my standards. Even eugeneics-kun isn't that retarded.
Someone brought up Vavilov, thought I'd drop this for people https://alexandr-palkin.livejournal.com/6991911.html
Thanks Very nice!
>Actually, the dispute between "Weismanists" and "neo-Darwinists" was purely academic. And this was not a dispute between genetics and antigenetics, but wasdispute between two directions in genetics.
>So there was no "persecution of genetics"! Weismanists had troubles, yes, but not at all because they were geneticists, but for a different reason: first, the waste of state money, and then an attempt to run over their scientific opponents with the involvement of foreign colleagues
>For example, for the introduction of the method of planting potatoes with the tops of tubers on March 22, 1943, T. D. Lysenko was awarded the Stalin Prize of the first degree.
>If someone does not know: this means cutting the tuber into parts, one eye for each and using them as planting material instead of the whole tuber. You can go even further - use for planting only the eye with a small fragment of the tuber - the top, and use the rest of the potato for food.
>But the date of the award says a lot - how this method helped save the country from hunger, helped the nation's food supply and ultimately win the war. Get one potato bush or five to ten bushes from one tuber, plus saved potatoes, which became truly "second bread" during the Second World War, is there a difference? For armchair science, probably none. And during the war - big, huge!
>Nobody says that Vavilov was a bad person. This is not why he was arrested and sent to prison (and not at all shot, as some believe).
>Vavilov's problem was not that he was a geneticist (Lysenko was also a geneticist, and this did not prevent him from receiving eight Orders of Lenin). And not even that he was wrong (in 1940 it was not yet obvious). The problem was the misuse of public money. Do you want to know how it was? Refer to primary sources, they are not classified yet.
>In fact, the processes against geneticists began with the fact that the plans declared by the Serebrovsky-Vavilov group for the development of new varieties in the five-year period 1932-1937 were not fulfilled.
>The state has never been a philanthropist in relation to science, it has always been an investor!
>Is always! And under socialism, and under capitalism, under any system, if a person takes money, promising a profit, but does not give this profit, he is punished. Wasted means stolen. "Stole, drank - to jail!"
>Sadly? In the case of Vavilov, yes.>But true
>Why I.V. Stalin supported Lysenko, of course. Because he knew perfectly well that his works are beneficial to the country, and the Weismanists are useless.
>“As a result of many years of work, Dubinin“ enriched ”science with the“ discovery ”that in the composition of the fly population among fruit flies in Voronezh and its environs during the war there was an increase in the percentage of flies with some chromosomal differences and a decrease in other fruit flies with other differences in chromosomes.
>Dubinin is not limited to discoveries so "highly valuable" for theory and practice, obtained by him during the war, he sets further tasks for himself for the recovery period and writes: normal living conditions. "(Movement in the hall. Laughter).
>This is the typical Morganist "contribution" to science and practice before the war, during the war, and such are the prospects of Morganist "science" for the recovery period! (Applause)".
>So because of what all the fuss, for which Academician T.D. Lysenko was so much filth, abomination, lies poured out? Why slander a scientist who has done so much useful for our country? Why was it necessary to denigrate his name, undeservedly, unfairly, with persistence worthy of better application, to make him one of the most odious personalities of Russian science of the twentieth century?
>Here is perhaps one of the best answers:
>“To understand why against T.D. Lysenko in 1960-90. such a total information war was waged, one should pay attention to the social significance of the main concept defended by him - the possibility of changing heredity under the influence of changes in the living conditions of the organism.
>This position, which he confirmed on practical experiments, contradicted, however, the ideological attitudes of some influential groups who held beliefs about the innate and invariable superiority of some peoples (or social groups) over others.
>Criticism of Weismann's theory by T.D. Lysenko also contributed to the failure of eugenic projects that were actively promoted in the 1920s and 1930s by the leading Weismannian geneticists in the USSR. These projects, dividing the Soviet people into "valuable" and "second-rate", were close to the way of thinking of both the then Trotskyists - analogues of the German Nazis, their rival colleagues - and many liberals, their successors and often relatives. "
This person is very naive. Mainly, in assuming that scientists who opposed Lysenko were honest scientists who pursued their own theory. No, they were careerists who got put under the charge of a honest scientist who promoted other honest scientists, instead of careerists and cronies.
Stalin's great transformation of nature, digging of many new channels, raising dams, new hydroelectric plants, shelterbelts along those new waterways, huge growth of forests all over the South and into the Kazakhstan to combat hot winds from Soviet deserts - all of that was one big policy, Lysenko was an integral part of. Remember how randoms come all the time to these threads with the "lol planting together multiple trees will murder most of the seeds! Look how dumb Lysenko was!", meanwhile in real reality, the idea was to create a treeline sturdy enough to withstand and alter winds near the ground, so, planting trees closely in experiments produced tightly-knit crown that did exactly what was needed, so, henceforth Soviets planted treelines between their fields closely, multiple kinds of trees and shrubs in a certain order, highly-scientifically. They dug ponds to for enriching the soil, breeding fish and cooling the ground.
Now then, with all this context, imagine a scientist attacking Lysenko. Why is that scientist so dumb that he doesn't understand what Lysenko was working towards, and producing results in? How can a honest scientist be so hell-bent on attacking the dumbest strawman possible? Just look at what happened INSTEAD OF Stalin's - and Lysenko's - transformation of nature - Virgin Lands campaign, headed by those scientists finally freed from Lysenko's tyranny!
<“As a result of many years of work, Dubinin“ enriched ”science with the“ discovery ”that in the composition of the fly population among fruit flies in Voronezh and its environs during the war there was an increase in the percentage of flies with some chromosomal differences and a decrease in other fruit flies with other differences in chromosomes.
Look at this shit. Those are honest scientists who merely pursued their own theory, alright.
Unique IPs: 17