Lysenko, Michurin and Epigenetics

[Amal]

I am here citing some sources, which clear speaks against the general notion of "main-stream" zoology and genetics towards the works to Lysenko and Michurin. If anyone start to search net with Trofim Lysenko and Ivan Michurin, what he/she will face is a good lot of "trash" about them. But, to those who have some little idea about their theories and works, I want to present the links below to them for study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973965/
http://cigognenews.blogspot.com/2010/01/epigenetics-inheritance-of-acquired.html#comment-form
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1312341
http://www.diigo.com/bookmark/http://www.newsweek.com/2009/09/17/what-alters-our-genes.html?tab=comment
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v364/n6439/abs/364712a0.html
http://www.maverickscience.com/lamarck-vindicated.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/27/us/inheritance-of-acquired-traits-in-mice-is-reported.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,846027,00.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090412081315.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/epigenetics.html
http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/issues_2011/2011_epigenetics.html
http://triplehelixblog.com/2011/05/epigenetics-what-it-means-and-why-you-should-care/
http://dels-old.nas.edu/envirohealth/newsletters/newsletter1_epigenetics.pdf
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-evolution-orchid-epigenetics.html
http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/23/7/781.full
http://www.sinauer.com/detail.php?id=2993
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/is-epigenetics-a-revolution-in-evolution/
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-06/foas-asc063011.php
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18925573
http://www.stembook.org/node/613
http://hstalks.com/main/browse_talk_info.php?talk_id=105&series_id=18&c=252
http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_81514.asp
http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/gene-regulation.html
http://www.xgencongress.com/epg
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642737-is-epigenetics-a-revolution-in-evolution (This essay is a good example that how the modern findings of “epigenetics” are challenging the Neo-Darwinian version of Evolutionary Biology, just look at the defensive tone of the author and how he ignores the date regarding recent discovery of epigenetic phenomenon in higher organisms like fly, salamander, rats)

[l'Enfermé]

Most consider Lysenko a charlatan, but isn't Michurin generally accepted to have been right around the world?

[Amal]

Most consider Lysenko a charlatan, but isn't Michurin generally accepted to have been right around the world?
To most, they are almost equal, a result to create some kind of "Stalinist/Soviet Science". And as far as I have understood, their is some basic similarity at the base of both of their works. Both firmly believe in the affect of surrounding environment on living organisms, both plant and animal. That's contrary to the "gene is all" concept prevailing overwhelmingly over the "official scientific community" almost worldwide. Now, with the advancement of epigenetics, it's now clear that environment certainly affect the outcome of individual organisms, despite their genetic structure and that environmental effect can affect the genes and can be flown to next generation contrary to general notion of "official scientific community".

[Zulu]

To most, they are almost equal, a result to create some kind of "Stalinist/Soviet Science". And as far as I have understood, their is some basic similarity at the base of both of their works. Both firmly believe in the affect of surrounding environment on living organisms, both plant and animal. That's contrary to the "gene is all" concept prevailing overwhelmingly over the "official scientific community" almost worldwide. Now, with the advancement of epigenetics, it's now clear that environment certainly affect the outcome of individual organisms, despite their genetic structure and that environmental effect can affect the genes and can be flown to next generation contrary to general notion of "official scientific community".

Michurin was a decent biologist, more of what may be called a practical naturalist type. Lysenko was a charlatan, a careerist and an enemy of the people. He should have been shot. But he managed to wiggle his way up the ranks of the Soviet science by using appeal to the ideology, and sycophancy towards Stalin and Malenkov. He used the name of Michurin in his games, thus it's got sort of soiled. Several real scientists died in prison because of Lysenko. Stalin made a mistake supporting him, but in the end of 1952 a couple of articles very critical of Lysenko appeared in scientific periodicals, indicating the possibility of his imminent downfall. Most probably Stalin was planning to stage another big purge very soon, and only his untimely death saved Lysenko. Under Khrushchev Lysenko was somewhat restrained, yet remained a prominent figure and kept sabotaging the study of genetics in the USSR (and throughout the entire Socialist bloc, in effect). And without genetics, there can't be any epigenetics.

Oh, and BTW, Lysenkoism wouldn't have happened if the classics of Marxism had not passed their mistaken judgment on Malthus' involuntary contribution to Darwinism.

[Amal]

Michurin was a decent biologist, more of what may be called a practical naturalist type. Lysenko was a charlatan, a careerist and an enemy of the people. He should have been shot. But he managed to wiggle his way up the ranks of the Soviet science by using appeal to the ideology, and sycophancy towards Stalin and Malenkov. He used the name of Michurin in his games, thus it's got sort of soiled. Several real scientists died in prison because of Lysenko. Stalin made a mistake supporting him, but in the end of 1952 a couple of articles very critical of Lysenko appeared in scientific periodicals, indicating the possibility of his imminent downfall. Most probably Stalin was planning to stage another big purge very soon, and only his untimely death saved Lysenko. Under Khrushchev Lysenko was somewhat restrained, yet remained a prominent figure and kept sabotaging the study of genetics in the USSR (and throughout the entire Socialist bloc, in effect). And without genetics, there can't be any epigenetics.
Oh, and BTW, Lysenkoism wouldn't have happened if the classics of Marxism had not passed their mistaken judgment on Malthus' involuntary contribution to Darwinism.
It's what your personal opinion (probably of many other people) about Lysenko. Whatsoever, I am not interested in the personal character of Lysenko. To me, Lysenkoism is basically the debate around "whether acquired characteristics can be inherited or not" or to be more specific "whether external environment and other external factors can change genes of organisms in a specific direction i.e. it's adaptability in the environment". The links that I have posted clearly posted that how external factors affect genes and genetic outcomes.
Michurin, as per the biography that I have in my hand written by Andrei Bakharev and published in 1959. was strictly against Weizmann's genetic theory. He himself, as per the biography, in his life created many varieties by asexual reproduction, which is impossible as per genetics as we know. His method of introducing changes to produce more and better yield isn't at all related to cross breeding only.
In an essay, Aldous Huxley, clearly said that Haldane decided to live in India instead of USSR just to protest the "unscientific theories" of Michurin and Lysenko.
My motto behind this thread is to arouse the debate regarding genetics as we know it. For a long time, due to the influence of scientists like Weizmann and Morgan, it has been thought that whatever may be the external factors, genes will reveal. I have posted this just to prove that HOW FOOLISH THAT NOTION WAS. Basically, such thoughts actually prevented us from proper flourishing of genetics and created the present day genetically modified monsters.
If Lysenko-Michurin's theory was the main culprit behind the failures of advancement in genetics, then why the bloody genetically modified monsters of today are products of faulty theory of Weizmann's and Morgans wrong theory?

[Zulu]

It's what your personal opinion (probably of many other people) about Lysenko. Whatsoever, I am not interested in the personal character of Lysenko. To me, Lysenkoism is basically the debate around "whether acquired characteristics can be inherited or not" or to be more specific "whether external environment and other external factors can change genes of organisms in a specific direction i.e. it's adaptability in the environment". The links that I have posted clearly posted that how external factors affect genes and genetic outcomes.
Michurin, as per the biography that I have in my hand written by Andrei Bakharev and published in 1959. was strictly against Weizmann's genetic theory. He himself, as per the biography, in his life created many varieties by asexual reproduction, which is impossible as per genetics as we know. His method of introducing changes to produce more and better yield isn't at all related to cross breeding only.
In an essay, Aldous Huxley, clearly said that Haldane decided to live in India instead of USSR just to protest the "unscientific theories" of Michurin and Lysenko.
My motto behind this thread is to arouse the debate regarding genetics as we know it. For a long time, due to the influence of scientists like Weizmann and Morgan, it has been thought that whatever may be the external factors, genes will reveal. I have posted this just to prove that HOW FOOLISH THAT NOTION WAS. Basically, such thoughts actually prevented us from proper flourishing of genetics and created the present day genetically modified monsters.
If Lysenko-Michurin's theory was the main culprit behind the failures of advancement in genetics, then why the bloody genetically modified monsters of today are products of faulty theory of Weizmann's and Morgans wrong theory?
First of all, it's what your personal opinion. And you are mistaken.

This epigenetics stuff cannot exist without the basis of Morgan-Weismann's genetics. It's been established beyond all doubt that inheritance works just the way Mendel, Morgan Weismann and others established, and no "epigeneticist" would ever question that. Epigenetics studies unusual, specific and exceptional mechanisms, which in no way contradict the main mechanism of inheritance, but are complementary with it. And it's absolutely impossible have any practical application of these studies without regard to the main mechanism. Some of these unusual mechanisms aren't even mechanisms of inheritance at all, but rather mechanisms of how the genes' work in the phenotype.

And the was never a "Michurin-Lysenko theory". The idea that "acquired characteristics can be inherited" is a reference to Lamarckism. It's true Michurin adhered to that idea to a degree, but he never pretended to be a Darwinist in the first place. His experiments in selection was partially successful, partially unsuccessful, but they were soundly staged and recorded experiments. Lysenko, on the contrary, was never into experimentation and only tried to apply his fantasies mixed with the Marxist dialectic and some other guys' results directly to agricultural production. And he maintained that he was a Darwinist, and Michurin had been a true Darwinist... until later, when he began criticising Darwin for Mathusianism, so that he and Michurin became truer Darwinists, than Darwin himself!

Lysenko was a saboteur and an enemy of the people, his careerist intrigues led to several worthy scientists ending up dead, setting the Soviet genetics, evolutionaly biology, molecular biology, and associated applied disciplines years, if not decades, behind. His unscientific methods which were repeatedly attempted to be introduced into the Soviet (and entire socialist bloc's) agriculture led to series of low and failed crops, thus negating the successes of the collectivization to a large extent, at the time agriculture in the West was undergoing the so called "Green Revolution" thanks not in small part to the correct implementation of the actual scientific methods. Marxist-Leninists should admit and learn from this grave mistake, as the self-criticism requirement forces them to.

[Amal]

First of all, it's what your personal opinion. And you are mistaken.

This epigenetics stuff cannot exist without the basis of Morgan-Weismann's genetics. It's been established beyond all doubt that inheritance works just the way Mendel, Morgan Weismann and others established, and no "epigeneticist" would ever question that. Epigenetics studies unusual, specific and exceptional mechanisms, which in no way contradict the main mechanism of inheritance, but are complementary with it. And it's absolutely impossible have any practical application of these studies without regard to the main mechanism. Some of these unusual mechanisms aren't even mechanisms of inheritance at all, but rather mechanisms of how the genes' work in the phenotype.
If you have gone through the papers that I have submitted, I think that you cannot say so. Weizmann's is a conservative supporter of genetics as we know it and the results in the experiments that I have posted, clearly contradicts Weizmann's view. Whether any epigenticist questioned Weizmann's isn't important at all, but the results showed clear deviation from Weizmann's theory, that's more important. And if same kind of genes work differently in different conditions, then it's certainly possible that they can also change. This basically epigenetics contradicts Weizmann's rat tail experiment.

And the was never a "Michurin-Lysenko theory". The idea that "acquired characteristics can be inherited" is a reference to Lamarckism. It's true Michurin adhered to that idea to a degree, but he never pretended to be a Darwinist in the first place. His experiments in selection was partially successful, partially unsuccessful, but they were soundly staged and recorded experiments. Lysenko, on the contrary, was never into experimentation and only tried to apply his fantasies mixed with the Marxist dialectic and some other guys' results directly to agricultural production. And he maintained that he was a Darwinist, and Michurin had been a true Darwinist... until later, when he began criticising Darwin for Mathusianism, so that he and Michurin became truer Darwinists, than Darwin himself!
Lamarck just told about the "inheritance of acquired characteristics" which later evolved into "change inserted in organism at the influence of environment". As per genetic theory of evolution, genetics changes are random and nature will choose just the best suitable. But, on contrary to such theories, reality always tells that this isn't the case.

Lysenko was a saboteur and an enemy of the people, his careerist intrigues led to several worthy scientists ending up dead, setting the Soviet genetics, evolutionaly biology, molecular biology, and associated applied disciplines years, if not decades, behind. His unscientific methods which were repeatedly attempted to be introduced into the Soviet (and entire socialist bloc's) agriculture led to series of low and failed crops, thus negating the successes of the collectivization to a large extent, at the time agriculture in the West was undergoing the so called "Green Revolution" thanks not in small part to the correct implementation of the actual scientific methods. Marxist-Leninists should admit and learn from this grave mistake, as the self-criticism requirement forces them to.
The "green revolution" of the west were more dependent on use of artificial fertilizer, extensive pumping and other kind of irrigation and now we are facing the poisonous results. I personally don't have any affection to genetically modified food.
As per capitalists and imperialists, the very basic idea of socialism itself is a big mistake. At least I don't want to learn from that. And also, I want to clarified that whether it's a mistake at all.
Can you tell me why Michurin is "criminally" ignored by western science so far?

[Zulu]

If you have gone through the papers that I have submitted, I think that you cannot say so. Weizmann's is a conservative supporter of genetics as we know it and the results in the experiments that I have posted, clearly contradicts Weizmann's view. Whether any epigenticist questioned Weizmann's isn't important at all, but the results showed clear deviation from Weizmann's theory, that's more important. And if same kind of genes work differently in different conditions, then it's certainly possible that they can also change. This basically epigenetics contradicts Weizmann's rat tail experiment.
Look, Weismann was not a "conservative supporter", he was one of the, so to say, "founding fathers" of genetics. And this phrase of yours - "And if same kind of genes work differently in different conditions, then it's certainly possible that they can also change." - reveals that you have hardly any understanding of how genes work, and why they can "work differently". Simplest example is your own fucking body: all cells carry the same genetic code, yet they are vastly different in different organs and tissues. But yeah, genes can change: put 'em next to a piece of uranium, and you'll won't be able to keep up the count of the random mutations, which drive the evolution as per Darwin, Weismann et al. Point is you can't just fantasize "Let's put this sort of rye into fridge, so it learns how to resist cold!" - as was basically what Lysenko did. BTW, one of the scientists reviled by Lysenko, T. H. Morgan was originally in favor of "big leaps" in evolution, even attacked Darwin's idea of natural selection, and tried to get a new species of the fruit fly; however, as he conducted his experiments with proper regard to scientific methodology, he had to retract his critique and admit that the results he achieved were more in line with Darwinism and in fact provided further justification and explanation of evolution by natural selection.

And it's even more telling that you failed to read into your own articles: half of them - the one that looks less cheezy, at least, and I didn't bother with reading the other half, says that all those amazing facts and phenomena, although previously not accounted for, do not in any way refute the modern neo-Darwinian synthetic theory of evolution.




Lamarck just told about the "inheritance of acquired characteristics" which later evolved into "change inserted in organism at the influence of environment". As per genetic theory of evolution, genetics changes are random and nature will choose just the best suitable. But, on contrary to such theories, reality always tells that this isn't the case.
Which reality? The one where all Lysenko's bright ideas resulted in huge waste of labor and material?





The "green revolution" of the west were more dependent on use of artificial fertilizer, extensive pumping and other kind of irrigation and now we are facing the poisonous results. I personally don't have any affection to genetically modified food.

Your personal affections are quite irrelevant when "genetically modified food" reduces requirements for labor and pesticides, is indeed resilient to extremities of weather, etc.





As per capitalists and imperialists, the very basic idea of socialism itself is a big mistake. At least I don't want to learn from that. And also, I want to clarified that whether it's a mistake at all.
OK, we'll try it once more to get it through your thick head: Lysenkoism was a huge mistake from the socialist perspective: it yielded zero scientific relevance (except that of an example how science is not to be done) and resulted in vast economic losses. Lysenkoism was bad not because the capitalists say so, but because it's bad. The capitalists use the legitimate example of an epic fail Lysenkoism was to support their thesis that Soviet science was all a lot of baloney, and Socialism in general "does not work", and you with your advocacy of Lysenkoism aren't helping, buddy. Soviet science achieved tremendous successes in some other fields, but Lysenkoism..., I mean, come on!

Oh, and by the way, modern epigenetics is a bourgeois science, funded amd run by capitalists, isn't it? And all those parers you've linked here are capitalist propaganda!





Can you tell me why Michurin is "criminally" ignored by western science so far?
Michurin's work on hybridization was used and expanded upon. But they were limited to a rather narrow field of horticulture. And his inferences regarding heredity were either disproved or explained by the "mainstream" genetics.

[Amal]

Look, Weismann was not a "conservative supporter", he was one of the, so to say, "founding fathers" of genetics. And this phrase of yours - "And if same kind of genes work differently in different conditions, then it's certainly possible that they can also change." - reveals that you have hardly any understanding of how genes work, and why they can "work differently". Simplest example is your own fucking body: all cells carry the same genetic code, yet they are vastly different in different organs and tissues. But yeah, genes can change: put 'em next to a piece of uranium, and you'll won't be able to keep up the count of the random mutations, which drive the evolution as per Darwin, Weismann et al. Point is you can't just fantasize "Let's put this sort of rye into fridge, so it learns how to resist cold!" - as was basically what Lysenko did. BTW, one of the scientists reviled by Lysenko, T. H. Morgan was originally in favor of "big leaps" in evolution, even attacked Darwin's idea of natural selection, and tried to get a new species of the fruit fly; however, as he conducted his experiments with proper regard to scientific methodology, he had to retract his critique and admit that the results he achieved were more in line with Darwinism and in fact provided further justification and explanation of evolution by natural selection.
How much idea do you have about genetics? For your understanding, I am giving some links below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weismann_barrier
Just read them.

And it's even more telling that you failed to read into your own articles: half of them - the one that looks less cheezy, at least, and I didn't bother with reading the other half, says that all those amazing facts and phenomena, although previously not accounted for, do not in any way refute the modern neo-Darwinian synthetic theory of evolution.
Why? Because you think so? I have gone through articles and posted the links after that. If you just want to ignore the results and stuck to "formal genetics", that's your problem. At least, the experimental results of Paul Kamerar tells a totally different story.

Which reality? The one where all Lysenko's bright ideas resulted in huge waste of labor and material?
And despite USSR and other countries succeeded in crop self-reliance? Strange.

Your personal affections are quite irrelevant when "genetically modified food" reduces requirements for labor and pesticides, is indeed resilient to extremities of weather, etc.
That shows that how ignorant you are about reality. Do you have any idea how pests quickly become resistant to genetically modified plants. In India, do you have any idea how BT cotton devastated lives of farmers and lead them to suicide. The reduction in cost is just for the first year, pests quickly develop resistance and cost goes upwards and ultimately resulted in higher cost in production than normal cotton. THAT'S A FACT.

OK, we'll try it once more to get it through your thick head: Lysenkoism was a huge mistake from the socialist perspective: it yielded zero scientific relevance (except that of an example how science is not to be done) and resulted in vast economic losses. Lysenkoism was bad not because the capitalists say so, but because it's bad. The capitalists use the legitimate example of an epic fail Lysenkoism was to support their thesis that Soviet science was all a lot of baloney, and Socialism in general "does not work", and you with your advocacy of Lysenkoism aren't helping, buddy. Soviet science achieved tremendous successes in some other fields, but Lysenkoism..., I mean, come on!
Ya, Lysenkoism is bad because some self-proclaimed "Marxist-Leninists" say so. Whatever modern findings may support that. As I have already described what Lysenkoism means to me and don't want to repeat.

Oh, and by the way, modern epigenetics is a bourgeois science, funded amd run by capitalists, isn't it? And all those parers you've linked here are capitalist propaganda!
As it's a science, it often produces the opposite, that it's intended for. Haldane in his book Science and Marxism given many examples how experimental and theoretical results done in UK had lead to results many more in accordance in Dialectic Materialism. To me, it's not important who are doing the experiments, but rather the outcome.

Michurin's work on hybridization was used and expanded upon. But they were limited to a rather narrow field of horticulture. And his inferences regarding heredity were either disproved or explained by the "mainstream" genetics.
Not disproved or explained, but rather ignored. Can you show any example of a "mainstream" genetics book of studies, that is recommended in colleges and universities, has references of Michurin's works, in the west specifically. I can guess that's not certainly the case in even present day Russia.
So far, fields of biology has been a battleground of ideologies since Darwin, unlike other fields of science. I hope you have idea about bitter attacks on Darwin from the beginning and how long it has taken for him being "accepted". That's the same case with Lysenko-Michurin.

[black magick hustla]

quantum mechanics and relativity were bourgeois sciences obv

[Zulu]

And despite USSR and other countries succeeded in crop self-reliance? Strange.
Lolwut? The Soviet Union began importing grain from Canada in the 1960s. That fact was later used by dissidents to "prove" that collectivization had killed the agriculture, but the truth is, the Soviet Union could have remained self-sufficient in terms of agriculture (it was that in the beginning, remember?) if the continued consolidation of the collectivized and state-owned farming was supported by real science and didn't have to suffer from Lysenkoism. In fact, the extent of the damage Lysenkoism did to the Soviet agriculture is somewhat DOWNPLAYED by the West, precisely so that they could keep arguing that collectivization was ineffective in itself. Khrushchev's ridiculous obsession with introducing maize everywhere, including the polar circle is nothing but the belch of Lysenkoism, and the failed campaign of cultivating the "tselina" virgin lands ended in a huge dust storm as the soil eroded due to blatant disregard of the scientific advancements made in the US in this field made in the wake of the similar disaster known as the "Dust Bowl" that occurred in the 1930s.

Anyway, it's obvious you're as ignorant, as you're self-righteous. One last tip for you: if you wish to revive and zealously adhere to some other obsolete theories, try out the theory of phlogiston or the caloric theory... At least they weren't so destructive the first time around as Lysenkoism.

[Zulu]

quantum mechanics and relativity were bourgeois sciences obv

That's right, some "Marxist philosophers" embarked on the attempt of "doing a Lysenko" on Einstein's theories. However, after a bunch of physicists wrote a letter to Beria (who was personally overseeing the Soviet nuclear program) and warned him that it might adversely affect the military-grade technology, they had to shut up.

[Amal]

Lolwut? The Soviet Union began importing grain from Canada in the 1960s. That fact was later used by dissidents to "prove" that collectivization had killed the agriculture, but the truth is, the Soviet Union could have remained self-sufficient in terms of agriculture (it was that in the beginning, remember?) if the continued consolidation of the collectivized and state-owned farming was supported by real science and didn't have to suffer from Lysenkoism. In fact, the extent of the damage Lysenkoism did to the Soviet agriculture is somewhat DOWNPLAYED by the West, precisely so that they could keep arguing that collectivization was ineffective in itself. Khrushchev's ridiculous obsession with introducing maize everywhere, including the polar circle is nothing but the belch of Lysenkoism, and the failed campaign of cultivating the "tselina" virgin lands ended in a huge dust storm as the soil eroded due to blatant disregard of the scientific advancements made in the US in this field made in the wake of the similar disaster known as the "Dust Bowl" that occurred in the 1930s.
What I have read in different books regarding this matter is the result of giving more autonomy to collective farms and restructuring on profit basis. It started with the handover of machine tractor stations to the collective, which Stalin strictly opposed from the very beginning. I am curious, why "unscientific" Lysenko theory takes so much long to affect upto the 60's when Khrushchevite revisionism started its effect? That's true for USSR, what about the other countries including Albania.
[QUOTE=Zulu;2409151Anyway, it's obvious you're as ignorant, as you're self-righteous. One last tip for you: if you wish to revive and zealously adhere to some other obsolete theories, try out the theory of phlogiston or the caloric theory... At least they weren't so destructive the first time around as Lysenkoism.[/QUOTE]
Actually, you are using the same words about Lysenko, which left-commies, anarchists and trots used against Stalin. You better go to wikipedia and expand your knowledge beyond the "official genetics" by searching with epigenetics. There are huge lot of studies that showed that how famines effect the physical and mental health of even future generations. In short, forerunners of people, who had undergone long famine, showed signs in them, though they were born and brought up in a more stable environment.
Basically, you yourself are just unable to understand that science in itself have many faults in it and always subject to change. Better try to learn by developing some reading habits.

[Amal]

quantum mechanics and relativity were bourgeois sciences obv
Science is science, what do you want to mean by that? Do you want to credit imperialism for the scientific advancements?
Problem with scientists is that. when they put a some theories, they often inject their own class view into it. There are lot of examples of that in history.

[Amal]

That's right, some "Marxist philosophers" embarked on the attempt of "doing a Lysenko" on Einstein's theories. However, after a bunch of physicists wrote a letter to Beria (who was personally overseeing the Soviet nuclear program) and warned him that it might adversely affect the military-grade technology, they had to shut up.
Mr. knowledgeable, Marx himself had done that and criticized Darwin on many aspects. I want to know which "Marxist philosophers" refused the basic equations of relativity and quantum mechanics for just being bourgeoisie and "western"? If they criticized Einstein on some aspect, then I hope that isn't a "big crime". I hope you also know about Bernard Shaw's view about Newton that he expressed on an occasion, where Einstein was honored.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Lysenko was a psuedoscientist and a mistake. End of story. We can't talk about "bourgeois sciences" and whatnot. Science is science, and psuedoscience is psuedoscience. Science is not proletarian and science is not bourgeois. Politicizing science is a crime against logic.

[Amal]

Lysenko was a psuedoscientist and a mistake. End of story. We can't talk about "bourgeois sciences" and whatnot. Science is science, and psuedoscience is psuedoscience. Science is not proletarian and science is not bourgeois. Politicizing science is a crime against logic.
No, not over anyway. What's the matter of debate is already concluded at the beginning, then it's not a discussion anymore.

[Rafiq]

Lysenko was full of shit sometimes, but people dismiss him much too often.

[black magick hustla]

Science is science, what do you want to mean by that? Do you want to credit imperialism for the scientific advancements?
Problem with scientists is that. when they put a some theories, they often inject their own class view into it. There are lot of examples of that in history.

you didnt get the referece/dont know your soviet science history but w/e

[Luís Henrique]

Lysenko was full of shit sometimes, but people dismiss him much too often.

Lysenko was only full of shit when he was awake. And probably when he was asleep but dreaming. So about 30% of the time he was just a normal guy, like you or me or Ted Bundy.

And people dismiss him too often, indeed. He should be taken in serious, as one of the most prominent charlatans ever, and a criminal one to booth.

Luís Henrique

[Amal]

Lysenko was only full of shit when he was awake. And probably when he was asleep but dreaming. So about 30% of the time he was just a normal guy, like you or me or Ted Bundy.

And people dismiss him too often, indeed. He should be taken in serious, as one of the most prominent charlatans ever, and a criminal one to booth.

Luís Henrique
This is the basic problem of this website. The conclusion become the starting point and later everything become just slandering. So far, all the threads started with "Lysenko is an ....." kind of BS, and I have doubt how many of them even have little idea, other than the garbage they "learnt", about the original theories and works of Lysenko.
To me, Lysenkoism is nothing but "environment can certainly change organism, not by natural selection of random variations occurring in nature, but rather in a specific way". What studies of epigenetics revealed, how environmental factors can suppress or release genetic effects. which is now a proven fact.
And instead of some serious discussion on that matter, this thread become full of worthless howlers. I sometimes think that I should have moderation right to kick out garbage.
Actually, many here become worst kind of charlatan when some debatable issues arrive.

[Mr. Natural]

I'm sure no expert in this matter, but it is all too obvious that Lysenko was the worst sort of a Stalinist thug. His pseudoscience and self-serving hostility to classic genetics got many real scientists purged.

Michurin was quite different. Here is Helena Sheehan in her excellent Marxism and the Philosophy of Science (1985):
"Contemporaneous with Lysenko's vernalization movement was a growing interest in the work of Michurin ... who cultivated fruit trees and began experimenting with grafting and hybridization. Michurin worked on the assumption that the environment exercised a crucial influence on the heredity of organisms and he queried the relevance of Mendel's 'peas laws' to fruit trees. Michurin's name was soon to be seized upon by Lysenko to designate a whole new theory of biology in opposition to classical genetics, even though Michurin himself had no such theoretical pretensions. Nor was he so anti-Mendelist as Lysenko made him out to be, for he did not hold to environmental influence on heredity to the exclusion of a recognition of the internal genetic constitution of the organism. Indeed, before his death in 1935, he began to acknowledge the validity of Mendelism."

The great Soviet geneticist, Nikolai Vavilov, who was purged by Stalin/Lysenko and died in prison, was one of seven such murdered Marxists to whom Sheehan dedicated her book.

[Amal]

I'm sure no expert in this matter, but it is all too obvious that Lysenko was the worst sort of a Stalinist thug. His pseudoscience and self-serving hostility to classic genetics got many real scientists purged.

Michurin was quite different. Here is Helena Sheehan in her excellent Marxism and the Philosophy of Science (1985):
"Contemporaneous with Lysenko's vernalization movement was a growing interest in the work of Michurin ... who cultivated fruit trees and began experimenting with grafting and hybridization. Michurin worked on the assumption that the environment exercised a crucial influence on the heredity of organisms and he queried the relevance of Mendel's 'peas laws' to fruit trees. Michurin's name was soon to be seized upon by Lysenko to designate a whole new theory of biology in opposition to classical genetics, even though Michurin himself had no such theoretical pretensions. Nor was he so anti-Mendelist as Lysenko made him out to be, for he did not hold to environmental influence on heredity to the exclusion of a recognition of the internal genetic constitution of the organism. Indeed, before his death in 1935, he began to acknowledge the validity of Mendelism."
The great Soviet geneticist, Nikolai Vavilov, who was purged by Stalin/Lysenko and died in prison, was one of seven such murdered Marxists to whom Sheehan dedicated her book.
There is just one problem. It isn't a matter what Michurin himself thought about his works but rather what his works showed. What you have said is nothing but Sheehan's opinion and the time it was wrote is very crucial. I don't have any idea about the tendency of Sheehan but the view she expressed is very much similar present day Russian view. They are always ready to denounce Lysenko while uphold Michurin and always try to prove that Lysenko "used" Michurin for his purpose. Nothing new about it.
How much do you know about the "murder" of Vavilov and other scientists? Basically the tendency of Sheehan is very much clear from her "dedication". Such people always like to ignore that a huge debate regarding this matter has been continued for a long time and theory of Lysenko-Michurin is accepted instead of Vavilov's traditional view.
I want to know that "great geneticist" Vavilov achieved?
http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/nov2008/stalinscience.html
On Ethan Pollock's book, there is a good detail of the meetings and decisions which showed that STALIN TOOK THE DECISION AND KILLED VAVILOV kind of shit. What I suspect is that the book of Sheehan is written by direct encouragement from bastard Gorby and time. The time is very crucial.
http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/jan2010/lysenko.html
Godfrey Cramer pointed towards some good issues in this speech.

[Zulu]

the original theories and works of Lysenko.

Lysenko had no theories in the scientific sense of the word. He just was in complete denial of some genuine theories. He denied existence of specific heredity material, saying "genes" was a property of the entire living matter. He denied intra-species competition, saying it was a mistake of Darwin to tie in Malthus' population vs. means of subsistence principle to the theory of evolution. He denied the results of large spreadsheets of experimental data (including those of Mendel's experiments, although they had been independently confirmed several times, even in the USSR!) in favor of the results of small-scale and often unverifiable experiments. He never kept proper records of the results of his own ill-conceived attempts of introduction of "revolutionary" methods to agricultural production, and denied their shortcomings that other agronomists tried to bring to the attention of the political leadership.





To me, Lysenkoism is nothing but"Lysenkoism" is a pejorative term to begin with. From its Russian origin it transcribes something like "Lysenkovshina", which is semantically pejorative construction. Lysenko himself referred to his "teachings" as "Michurinian genetics" and "Michurinian agrobiology", but in essence they were just an emasculated theory of evolution coupled with the neo-Lamarkian ideas that organisms could not only be "trained" to adapt to the environment but also pass that "training" as a newly acquired genetic characteristic on to the offspring.

And Lysenko was so much in favor of the idea that all science was divided along the same rifts as the social classes, that there was the "bourgeois science", and the "proletarian science". Stalin personally edited out such references in one of Lysenko's crucial speeches in 1948, along with the references to his early work "Anarchism or Socialism?", where he had written something about Darwinism succumbing to Lamarkism. Too bad he still supported Lysenko in general, even though his son-in-law, Yuri Zhdanov (son of Andrey Zhdanov) - criticized both Lysenko's personality and the effect of his "scientific" activity. And in the end it seems Stalin finally was abandoning that support and only Stalin's death saved Lysenko from the Gulag. And then Lysenko got all cozy with Khrushchev, and remained so even after Khrushchev denounced Stalin and condemned his "mistakes and abuses" - of which Lysenko was one of the few genuine ones!





"environment can certainly change organism, not by natural selection of random variations occurring in nature, but rather in a specific way". What studies of epigenetics revealed, how environmental factors can suppress or release genetic effects. which is now a proven fact.

And that environmental activation or suppression of certain genes in no way contradicts the classic genetics. Because to be activated or suppressed the genes still must be there as a result of evolution by natural selection of random mutations passed on through generations by the mechanism described by the classic genetics - something that Lysenko completely denied! Those few exceptions to the main mechanism of heredity that are described as the "lateral/horizontal gene transfer" have nothing to do with Lysenko and were in no way envisaged by this charlatan, and could not be envisaged by him, and absolutely could not fit with his views, because he denied the chromosome theory of heredity altogether! The mechanism of such activation or suppression is not fundamentally different from that of hormonally induced differentiation of the stem cells into all types of somatic cells (all of which then pass on their induced typical characteristics as they continue to multiply).

Bottom line, any actual researcher in the field of epigenetics will probably loose his pants running away from you and then cry for an hour in some hiding place or at some comforting "mainstream" geneticist's shoulder, if you suggest that his work somehow supports something Lysenko ever said or did.

[Amal]

Lysenko had no theories in the scientific sense of the word. He just was in complete denial of some genuine theories. He denied existence of specific heredity material, saying "genes" was a property of the entire living matter. He denied intra-species competition, saying it was a mistake of Darwin to tie in Malthus' population vs. means of subsistence principle to the theory of evolution. He denied the results of large spreadsheets of experimental data (including those of Mendel's experiments, although they had been independently confirmed several times, even in the USSR!) in favor of the results of small-scale and often unverifiable experiments. He never kept proper records of the results of his own ill-conceived attempts of introduction of "revolutionary" methods to agricultural production, and denied their shortcomings that other agronomists tried to bring to the attention of the political leadership.
This portion is a good example of what can be called as "callous ignorance". I have just searched google and posting some links for you to understand(!). At least they are enough to prove the Lysenko in reality have some theory.
http://www.vir.nw.ru/history/lysenko.htm
www.marx2mao.com/Other/Proletarian%20Science.pdf (This is a wonderful you, but I have doubt whether you can understand that or not)
www.human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/getting.html
eurekamag.com/review/l/0401/lysenko.php - United States

"Lysenkoism" is a pejorative term to begin with. From its Russian origin it transcribes something like "Lysenkovshina", which is semantically pejorative construction. Lysenko himself referred to his "teachings" as "Michurinian genetics" and "Michurinian agrobiology", but in essence they were just an emasculated theory of evolution coupled with the neo-Lamarkian ideas that organisms could not only be "trained" to adapt to the environment but also pass that "training" as a newly acquired genetic characteristic on to the offspring.
Well, what about the recent studies in epigenetics, which shows reduction in growth of offsprings of those who had gone through a long famine. Just wiki with epigenetics and you will get a good deal. What do you want to say about the experiments of Paul Kamerar on Salamanders where they were put into a yellow colored environment and later yellow colored offsprings were produced.

And Lysenko was so much in favor of the idea that all science was divided along the same rifts as the social classes, that there was the "bourgeois science", and the "proletarian science". Stalin personally edited out such references in one of Lysenko's crucial speeches in 1948, along with the references to his early work "Anarchism or Socialism?", where he had written something about Darwinism succumbing to Lamarkism. Too bad he still supported Lysenko in general, even though his son-in-law, Yuri Zhdanov (son of Andrey Zhdanov) - criticized both Lysenko's personality and the effect of his "scientific" activity. And in the end it seems Stalin finally was abandoning that support and only Stalin's death saved Lysenko from the Gulag. And then Lysenko got all cozy with Khrushchev, and remained so even after Khrushchev denounced Stalin and condemned his "mistakes and abuses" - of which Lysenko was one of the few genuine ones!
You call yourself an M-L, but actually have nil idea about the real situation of that time. Those decisions weren't Stalin or Lysenko's sole wish, but rather outcome of a long debate. Vavilov himself praised the works of Lysenko at that time.
FYI, the failure of maize production during Khrushchev is mainly due to implementation of heterogenesis, a "modern accepted method" as per people like you. Lysenko's methods make millet harvest so successful that it has become the staple food of Red Army during WWII.

And that environmental activation or suppression of certain genes in no way contradicts the classic genetics. Because to be activated or suppressed the genes still must be there as a result of evolution by natural selection of random mutations passed on through generations by the mechanism described by the classic genetics - something that Lysenko completely denied! Those few exceptions to the main mechanism of heredity that are described as the "lateral/horizontal gene transfer" have nothing to do with Lysenko and were in no way envisaged by this charlatan, and could not be envisaged by him, and absolutely could not fit with his views, because he denied the chromosome theory of heredity altogether! The mechanism of such activation or suppression is not fundamentally different from that of hormonally induced differentiation of the stem cells into all types of somatic cells (all of which then pass on their induced typical characteristics as they continue to multiply).

Bottom line, any actual researcher in the field of epigenetics will probably loose his pants running away from you and then cry for an hour in some hiding place or at some comforting "mainstream" geneticist's shoulder, if you suggest that his work somehow supports something Lysenko ever said or did.
As per the modern discoveries. If you say so during those times. most probably you also be termed as "Lysenkoist Charlatan".
Bottom line, any actual researcher should look into matter without wearing any kind of glasses. If instead of howling "Lysenko is a charlatan", researchers will look at his workers in a more scientific way, genetics would be more advanced today and most probably epigenetics will get an advance start.

[Zulu]

shows reduction in growth of offsprings of those who had gone through a long famine.
Natural selection at its finest, maybe?





Salamanders where they were put into a yellow colored environment and later yellow colored offsprings were produced.
And? The genes that are "responsible" for "putting on the yellow" are already there!!! It's not a new species or subspecies or race of salamanders. Take them out of the "yellow" environment and in a couple of generations they will be back to the normal dispersement of pigmentation.





Vavilov himself praised the works of Lysenko at that time.
At the time (1948) Vavilov had been dead for 5 years already. And he had praised the works of Lysenko until 1935, assuming they had been conducted with respect for the requirements of scientific methodology (which in reality they were not) and thus their results had been as good as Lysenko had presented them. But after he had had a chance to acquaint himself more closely with Lysenko and his methods, he changed his mind like 1-80, didn't he?





FYI, the failure of maize production during Khrushchev is mainly due to implementation of heterogenesis, a "modern accepted method" as per people like you.
Lolwhut? If by "heterogenesis" you mean mutationism, it was an anti-Darwinian theory that practically rejected the role of natural selection (much like Lysenko himself did), but was based on classical genetics (and as such was reviled by Lysenko). However, it's popularity in the West faded away with the advent of the Modern evolutionary synthesis theory (in the 1950s), and if some Soviet geneticists adhered to it once Lysenko began to lose his dictatorial position in the Soviet science, it's also his damn fault that those scientists had no way to keep up with the scientific advances in the West, or at least conduct their own research of genetics and heredity.





Lysenko's methods make millet harvest so successful that it has become the staple food of Red Army during WWII.
Millet became the staple food of the Red Army because all areas where most other kinds of cereals could grow had been occupied by the Nazis by the harvest season of 1942 (and then after liberation could not immediately restart production due to population displacement and general devastation by continuous warfare). Millet was the most frugal culture, the one staunchest in terms of cultivation, transportation and storage - but absolutely tasteless and rather "heavy" in terms of digestion, so it was the grain of choice due to logistical considerations and not some mythical successes of Lysenko's methods.

In fact, vernalization techniques (some of which were practiced by peasantry in different regions for centuries before Lysenko decided to make his career on them) did produce some positive effects, but they were completely offset by the factors of their large scale implementation: they required almost the double amount of seed and substantial additional work-time of the collective farmers, while the attempts to mechanize it only led to even bigger requirements of seed as machinery simply maimed the vernalized seed. To put it simply, it was the classical case when "the juice was not worth the squeeze", and anyway it proved nothing one way or another regarding genetics or the theory of evolution. Vernalization was only successful to a degree when applied to potatoes, but Lysenko believed that if he tried hard enough he'd get any results he desired with any culture and just stubbornly insisted on repeated attempts of his epic failures.





As per the modern discoveries. If you say so during those times. most probably you also be termed as "Lysenkoist Charlatan".
Not at all. Phenomena such as determination of sex in reptiles and amphibians by environmental factors were well known, and although the mechanism was not fully understood, it wasn't regarded as a contradiction to the chromosome theory of heredity. In fact, such simple things as sun tanning, freckles, as well as non-infectious environmentally induced illnesses (such as your favorite dystrophy due to malnutrition) were never regarded as contradictions to the classical genetics.





Bottom line, any actual researcher should look into matter without wearing any kind of glasses. If instead of howling "Lysenko is a charlatan", researchers will look at his workers in a more scientific way, genetics would be more advanced today and most probably epigenetics will get an advance start.
There is not much in Lysenko's "workers" to look at in a "scientific way", because they are patently unscientific. And epigenetics wouldn't get an "advanced start" because it has Mendel's, Morgan's, Weismann's, Sutton's and other genuine geneticists' studies at their basis, to which they are complementary, and Lysenko was calling all that a bourgeois pseudoscience.

[Amal]

Natural selection at its finest, maybe?
Not in a slightest sense. Natural selection can choose only among sporadic random changes. Such phenomenon has covered almost all the population.
I have read on paper that plants in Bhopal, specifically a huge lot of those born after the 1984 Bhopal gas leak tragedy, were more MIC resistant than their counterparts elsewhere. How can you describe that?
As per "genetic theory of Evolution", natural selection can only select a few suitable survivors out of random varieties. Can you mathematically from the laws of probablity, say what % of offsprings can be suitable in such case? My common sense says that it will certainly be lower than 50% and rest will die to give space to spread this new charactaristics. While in reality, it's much more than 50%. Can not explained be explained by random genetic change theory anyway.

And? The genes that are "responsible" for "putting on the yellow" are already there!!! It's not a new species or subspecies or race of salamanders. Take them out of the "yellow" environment and in a couple of generations they will be back to the normal dispersement of pigmentation.
Do you really believe what you have said above?

At the time (1948) Vavilov had been dead for 5 years already. And he had praised the works of Lysenko until 1935, assuming they had been conducted with respect for the requirements of scientific methodology (which in reality they were not) and thus their results had been as good as Lysenko had presented them. But after he had had a chance to acquaint himself more closely with Lysenko and his methods, he changed his mind like 1-80, didn't he?
As if Vavilov is a total full to believe what Lysenko had "presented" to him. That term may be applied to the whole Soviet leadership that they are full enough to believe what Lysenko had presented before them.
Ironically, the Vavilov Institute of Russia (http://www.vir.nw.ru) has a respectable position for Lysenko.
Words like this seems callous enough and similar to reactionary howling that "all achievements of USSR during Stalin is just STALINIST PROPAGANDA". The whole leadership, people and other scientists are naive enough to accept Lysenko just on the basis of his "represented facts".
Ironically, such statements come from an M-L(!).

Lolwhut? If by "heterogenesis" you mean mutationism, it was an anti-Darwinian theory that practically rejected the role of natural selection (much like Lysenko himself did), but was based on classical genetics (and as such was reviled by Lysenko). However, it's popularity in the West faded away with the advent of the Modern evolutionary synthesis theory (in the 1950s), and if some Soviet geneticists adhered to it once Lysenko began to lose his dictatorial position in the Soviet science, it's also his damn fault that those scientists had no way to keep up with the scientific advances in the West, or at least conduct their own research of genetics and heredity.
First, I must admit my fault here. It's "heterosis" not "heterogenesis". In 1965, by making Mendel centenary a ceremony, Lysenkoism has been officially ended in USSR. After that, there wasn't any obstacle for soviet geneticists to conduct research in "proper scientific method". What was the outcome? Minister of Agriculture involuntarily revealed the catastrophic figures for cereal production in 1974. What a wonderful outcome of proper scientific method! That trend still continued today and Russia is still a food importing country despite years of research and development in "proper scientific method".
The way you are talking about Lysenko remind me anti-Stalin hacks talking about Stalin. It seems like "Stalin become a dictator and destroyed all opposition and controlled everything by just power".

Millet became the staple food of the Red Army because all areas where most other kinds of cereals could grow had been occupied by the Nazis by the harvest season of 1942 (and then after liberation could not immediately restart production due to population displacement and general devastation by continuous warfare). Millet was the most frugal culture, the one staunchest in terms of cultivation, transportation and storage - but absolutely tasteless and rather "heavy" in terms of digestion, so it was the grain of choice due to logistical considerations and not some mythical successes of Lysenko's methods.
What was the productivity of millet before Lysenko in USSR? Very low. Lysenko's "mythical success" increased its productivity so that it can be supplied to Red Army in enough quantity.

In fact, vernalization techniques (some of which were practiced by peasantry in different regions for centuries before Lysenko decided to make his career on them) did produce some positive effects, but they were completely offset by the factors of their large scale implementation: they required almost the double amount of seed and substantial additional work-time of the collective farmers, while the attempts to mechanize it only led to even bigger requirements of seed as machinery simply maimed the vernalized seed. To put it simply, it was the classical case when "the juice was not worth the squeeze", and anyway it proved nothing one way or another regarding genetics or the theory of evolution. Vernalization was only successful to a degree when applied to potatoes, but Lysenko believed that if he tried hard enough he'd get any results he desired with any culture and just stubbornly insisted on repeated attempts of his epic failures.
And others are fool enough to also "believe" on his "unscientific theory"? Actually, inadvertently you have expressed the basic cause of degeneration of Lysenkoism. LYSENKOIST METHODS ARE MUCH MORE PAINSTAKING AND LABORIOUS. While after WWII, as explosive factories were quickly changed into "fertilizer industries" and introduction of new kind of pesticides like DDT and other chemicals and so-called high-yielding varieties, that offers a mirage of "quick success" can be far ahead to the painstaking and laborious methods of Michurin-Lysenko.
Not only USSR, but most of world accepted this model. What is the outcome? Punjab, the western province of India, once known for "green revolution" is drying sharply. Underground water level falling sharply and soil chemically poisonous due to excessive use of chemical fertilizer and pesticides. It now need a handful of fertilizer to grow just a single sapling there. Such phenomenon are now common around the world where "modern method of agriculture" had been introduced.
In India, the birthplace of paddy, there were 64000 kind of rice had been cultivated which now reduced into just 50 HIGH-YIELDING VARIETIES. Though at present, some farmers, by the bitter lessons are now trying to revert back indigenous breeds just to save cost on fertilizer, water and pesticide. Such breeds are much more resistant to pests, flood, drought and even salt. In the Sundarban region, at the southern tip of West Bengal, a state of India, after Ayela, a hurricane that devastated huge area, farmers have found that indigenous varieties grow much more better than those high-yielding varieties in the salty ground, salted by seawater.
That's some examples of outcome of "modern methods of agriculture, genetics and .....".

Not at all. Phenomena such as determination of sex in reptiles and amphibians by environmental factors were well known, and although the mechanism was not fully understood, it wasn't regarded as a contradiction to the chromosome theory of heredity. In fact, such simple things as sun tanning, freckles, as well as non-infectious environmentally induced illnesses (such as your favorite dystrophy due to malnutrition) were never regarded as contradictions to the classical genetics.
You have missed just one point. What you have said isn't some kind of acquired characteristics, necessary to survive in a specific environment and those changes as far as I know, cannot be transferred to offsprings. I don't any example that sun tanned couple give birth to a darker child. But, on contrary, when a group of people entered different country and faced different environmental condition, they quickly changed. A huge lot of Indians originated from Caucasian Aryans, who were fair enough. But, though their nose, lip and eyeshape matches well with their forefathers, but by skin color, they aren't very much ahead of Africans.

There is not much in Lysenko's "workers" to look at in a "scientific way", because they are patently unscientific. And epigenetics wouldn't get an "advanced start" because it has Mendel's, Morgan's, Weismann's, Sutton's and other genuine geneticists' studies at their basis, to which they are complementary, and Lysenko was calling all that a bourgeois pseudoscience.
THERE IS. Unless you just take your anti-Lysenko glass away and look at it with open eye.
From Newton to Darwin, everybody had make mistakes. Newton thought that light consists of particles. Einstein's initial vision of universe is a stagnant one, which he himself later admitted to be false due to discoveries of Hubble and others. Satyendranath Bose, famous Indian physicist and co-inventor of Bose-Einstein statistics and on whose name, many sub-atomic particles are now termed as Boson, once send a paper to Einstein. This paper was the starting point of Bose-Einstein statistics. Einstein accepted the paper and gladly recommended that. But, he cut the portion, where Bose concluded that at very very low temperature, close to 0K, atoms began to act like Boson. Einstein didn't liked that part. But, at present, modern experiments began to show that Bose was correct in this regard, not Einstein. There is also Einstein stubbornness to admit that something can go faster than light, now experiments on quantum entanglement shows that quantum information wave can travel much much faster than light.
Does all this faults negate Einstein's achievement? No. But, like the anti-Lysenko glass, if you are wearing an anti-Einstein glass, I am sure that we arguing on Einstein now.

[Zulu]

OK, that's it. It's obvious you're sitting under some "pro-Lysenko glass" and ain't going to get out.

The historical fact remains though that the slimy weasel was a shining proof that the Soviet Union was indeed full of wreckers and saboteurs, such as him, and the purges and the Great Terror of 1937 were quite justified. Too bad sometimes they managed to frame honest people.

[Amal]

OK, that's it. It's obvious you're sitting under some "pro-Lysenko glass" and ain't going to get out.

The historical fact remains though that the slimy weasel was a shining proof that the Soviet Union was indeed full of wreckers and saboteurs, such as him, and the purges and the Great Terror of 1937 were quite justified. Too bad sometimes they managed to frame honest people.
At least my glasses are more clearer than you. I have clearly meant from the very beginning what I meant to say by Lysenkoism. I just want to revisit his works and extract if there is anything useful in it and I am pretty sure that there should be some good materials inside it.
I point, that I have asked many zoologist to explain on the basis of "accepted theories". Humans all over the world have just 0.1% genetic difference maximum while they vary very much phenotypically from place to place. Those who have little understanding of medical science, know well how dangerous excessive protein and fat intake to most. But, Eskimos and some northern European tribes live almost solely on protein and fat diet, but still heart disease is almost unknown among them. A few thousand humans entered North American and Western Hemisphere through Bering bridge and huge variety of Red Indians later developed from those few. North American Indians, living in open prairie are tall and muscular while that living in the Andes are shorter and muscular legged. Mountain tribes even have more developed lungs to suck maximum oxygen from thin air of mountains.
In contrast, Chimpanzees of two neighboring forests though have negligible phenotypic difference, but vary more than humans all over the world. So far, I haven't got any proper answer to this mystery from "scientific theories" as we know.
Moreover, I just can't understand that how leaders to USSR can be so naive to tolerate such unscientific theory with "disastrous consequences" for such a long time.

[black magick hustla]

there is some true that some vaguely "lysenkoist" theories are being more or less being recycled. but that doesn't mean the man was not a charlatan, just cuz' by sheer statistical randomness some of his ideas that were not derived through scientific methodology somehow came out vaguely right.

[Amal]

there is some true that some vaguely "lysenkoist" theories are being more or less being recycled. but that doesn't mean the man was not a charlatan, just cuz' by sheer statistical randomness some of his ideas that were not derived through scientific methodology somehow came out vaguely right.
Well, then anybody around can be scientist by such "statistical randomness". The problem is, why such "statistical randomness" has some observable effects only in USSR during those times. I hope that probably the same statistical randomness theory can also be applied to Michurin too.

[Zulu]

Just want to log this here link to a decent ML-rundown on Lysenkoism:

http://ml-review.ca/aml/Lysenko/LysenkoPT4.htm