He was right
>>18039321I don't know who he is, but he looks kinda chad, so I agree, he must've been right
>>18039330That is Lysenko. He advocated banning Charles Darwin in the USSR and called him pseudoscience. Lysenko believed that traits are inherited even if you physically acquire them during your life and not necessarily from birth.
Leftist defenses of this dude are utterly bizarre. Firstly because they are mostly based in a misunderstanding of epigenetics and are just scientifically wrong. And secondly, literally every socialist country (USSR, China, you name it) abandoned Lysenkoism. Why are you guys defending it?
>>18039336Yes, they abandoned Lysenkovism and see what happened? The moment they did they allowed reaction to take hold. No, we must hold steadfast to the ideas of Michurinite biology! After the revolution we will keep the bourgeois biologists alive just to have them see Lysenko's disciples finally turn rye into wheat!
>>18039333Imagine how based life would be if that were the case. You could create eugenically perfect demigods in 1-2 generations by just selecting good partners.
>>18039645While Mao's policies were the primary cause of the Great Chinese Famine, they were directly and disastrously influenced by the pseudoscientific ideas of Soviet agronomist Trofim Lysenko. Mao adopted these flawed agricultural techniques during the Great Leap Forward, which began in 1958, and they contributed significantly to the widespread crop failures and mass starvation. The disastrous Lysenkoist policiesIn 1958, Mao launched his "Eight Point Charter of Agriculture," which incorporated Lysenko's debunked theories into official policy. These included: Close planting: This policy mandated planting seeds and seedlings extremely close together. Lysenko claimed that plants of the same "class" would not compete with one another. The reality, however, is that this extreme density inhibited growth and resulted in lower yields.Deep plowing: Farmers were forced to plow soil much deeper than was appropriate for China's land, based on Lysenkoist theory that this would encourage faster, deeper root growth. This, in fact, turned up poor-quality soil and left crops to wither.
>>18039321Trofim Lysenko firmly proved that the modern concept of the gene is superfluous and thus permanently destroyed eugenics. The modern conception of the gene is as such: there exist distinct single “heredity units" that all phenomenologically manifest themselves in the species possessing them. It was first advanced by Mendel. The followers of Mendel conceive that genes contain, in some kind of code script, the entire pattern of the individual’s development and of its functioning in the mature state. But Lysenko conceives of heredity and development as such:>The organism and conditions required for its life are an inseparable unity. Heredity is the property of a living body to require definite conditions for its development and to respond in a definite way to conditionsHe came to this conclusion after observing V. I. Karapetian's experiment on wheat plantations. In 1949 a search for rye grains in wheat spikes was instituted in the fields of the foothill districts where winter-wheat crops are frequently found to be adulterated with rye. What had happened is that under new conditions, the Durham wheat (28-chromosome) had started morphing into soft wheat (42-chromosome). This was impossible to explain under Darwinian presuppositions since changes in species/phenology could only happen over hundreds of generations.This was not a mere accident but rather a recurrent effect. This is also observed in modern biological research and dubbed "epigenetics". Here's a paper exploring Lysenko's original epigenetic theory and how it was pretty accurate of an explanation:>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12449684/ (Note: The authors of this study have to say negative things about Lysenkoism to appease the NATO science complex. If you read the full study you see that it supports Lysenkoism.)(1/2)
>>18039660Further advances in biology kept sweeping away the Mendelian suppositions one by one. Experiments have shown how living forms flourished as “molecular soups” long before genes existed. They self-organized, synthesized polymers (like RNA and DNA), adapted, and reproduced. They followed “instructions” arising from relations between components, according to current conditions, with no overall controller: compositional information, as the geneticist Doron Lancet calls it.In this perspective, the genes evolved way later. Physiologist Denis Noble has described it as the Dancing to the Tune of Life. It is displayed in early development. Through the statistical patterns within the storms, instructions are, again, created de novo. That could not have been specified in the fixed linear strings of DNA. Another wrench in the works has been the discovery that a "gene product" typically undergoes rearrangements before being put to use. DNA on its own does absolutely nothing until activated by the rest of the system. DNA is not a cause in an active sense.>https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2014.00625/fullIn a review in the journal Genetics in 2017, the geneticists Petter Portin and Adam Wilkins question “the utility of the concept of a basic ‘unit of inheritance’ and the belief that genes are autonomous agents.” They show that “the classic molecular definition is obsolete.” The startling implication is that the gene as popularly conceived does not really exist.This is a devastating realization for the ones wishing to build a "pure" racially structured society. There is no purity within any species. They all act within and in response to conditions. This is one of the many ways ideology creeps into science, showing once again to always hold science to the test."Ruthless Criticism of All That Exists"(2/2)
>>18039645Sometimes I think this guy was a deep cover NeoNazi agent who was trying to kill off millions of Slavs and Chinks on purpose.
>>18039658Holy fuck.Was this guy a total marxists believer?He didnt test these theories to see if they would work? No one taught him or them the scientific method?>>18039660>>18039664This stuff is interesting but it does sound communist pilled.
>>18039687Darwinianism led to survival of the fittest and Nazism which Bolsheviks wished to distance themselves from. Lysenko believed in things opposite to it like plant seeds are of the same biological "class" so planting them together is a good idea.I find it ironic that evangelicals and Bolsheviks both hate Darwin for different reasons.
>>18039321>The Marxist Science will continue until everybody starvesI mean, he was one of the most retarded and destructive members of one of the most retarded and destructive states in history, but if it was only happening to the USSR and PRC I could get behind that.
>>18039660hybridization
>>18039706>I find it ironic that evangelicals and Bolsheviks both hate Darwin for different reasons.US protestant schizos and Soviets have a lot in common, yes.
I the context of contrarianism against modern medicine and biology that exists among US protestants, it is possible they will even adopt ideas from Lysenkoism.The whole >vaccines are a plot to control the populationwas initially a theory among Africans and the far left in the West during the Cold-War with the ones accused being white westerns "imperialists", yet the idea got adopted by the US right in the last 20 years or so.
>>18039321Meanwhile another soviet created a domesticated fox through selective breeding. What was surprising is that the domesticated foxes developed dog like feautures. You could say he proved eugenics.
>>18039330Most people looked like that back when it was hard for weaklings to stay alive for long.If you think of someone like Einstein, back in his day his meek and soft-bellied looks must have struck a lot of people around him as peculiarly dysgenic, but nowadays he'd look quite average
>>18039321I have a biography of this guy
>>18040418Any interesting tidbits?
