lpetrich

Actually, the Lysenkoites claimed to be supporters of Darwinism. What they did not agree with was genetics. They believed that genes simply do not exist, and that they could directly alter the heredity of crop plants.

Part of their case was that their work had more immediate practical application than crossbreeding fruit flies; they claimed to be able to do a better job at breeding suitable crop plants than mainstream genetics. However, their experimental procedures were shoddy almost beyond belief, such as having no conception of what a controlled experiment is, and Lysenko considered using statistics a waste of time. Sometimes such "procedures" did not deliver, as judged from how some of their "results" had been faked.

The Lysenkoites had had Stalin's ear, extending to Stalin doing some rewriting of a a major speech that Lysenko had made. Mainstream geneticists were made to recant, sent to gulags, and even executed. Mainstream genetics was called Mendelism, Weismannism, Morganism, Menshevik idealism, formalism, and other such dirty words.

But the Lysenkoites never produced improved crop plants other than the occasional good hybrid.

The Lysenkoites' methods were something like Jacob making Laban's solid-colored livestock have spotted and streaked offspring in Genesis 30.

I find a suspicious resemblance between creationism and Lysenkoism. Imagine what genome research would be like without the use of evolutionary biology -- unless it was introduced in some backdoor fashion as special creation that just so happens to look like evolution.

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

lpetrich

What kind of tripe is that? And what sort of physical mechanism do they propose that had increased several radioactive-decay rates by a factor of a million or so -- and the same factor for all of them?

GeoTheo

Sorry Dire I'm not gonna just let this one slide by. So merely by disbelieving in Darwinism The Ruskys ruined their agricultural technology? It wasn't that they held to some other odd belief in its favor (one rejected by both creationists and modern evolutionists) As soon as someoene questions Darwinism Poof ! Right back into the stone age? Sure you are not conveniently leaving out a signifigant detail? Like Lamarkism perhaps.
Growing corn and not watering it enough so that the next generation could be grown in an arid climate from its aquired characteristics had nothing to do with it?
Belief in Lamarkism had nothing to do with itJust the mere doubt of Darwinism right? Their agriculture was like tinkerbell. Not enough kids believed so it just started to fade away......

GeoTheo

I don't disagree with any of the discoveries of how genetics works. Insofar as how limited and imperfectly understood it actually is. Obviously we don't understand things like cell division perfectly or we would cure cancer.
You act like creationists don't believe in miosis and things like that.
The only difference is origins.

beausoleil

I think it's only even conceivable in the US, so what happens is that Europe and China take over the world.

GeoTheo

Are you of the opinion that massive evolution occurs everyday on a huge scale like chickens hatching mammals out of eggs and giving birth to people? And that everybody can see it before their very eyes except creationists? That's how you make it sound. Last time I checked evolutionists thought positive mutations were rare? Why do you think so much time is believed to be involved? Duh! So a creationist geneticist and an evolutionary ganeticist could be in total agreement as to how these processes work in everyday life . The creationist just believes that mutations filtered by natural selection could not produce all life. When an error occurs and a kid is borm with hemophilia or cystic fibrosis. The creationis says that all mutations end up like that and the evolutionst says "No you cretin it's 9.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99. % How can you be capable of doing any scientific research?"

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: GeoTheo ]</p>

lpetrich

That might be correct when describing Philip Gosse Omphalos created-appearance creationism. But many creationists do not subscribe to special creation with the exact appearance of evolution; they make numerous claims that are demonstrably false, such as Duane Gish's claim
Source: <a href="http://www.holysmoke.org/gishlies.htm" target="_blank">http://www.holysmoke.org/gishlies.htm</a>

Duane Gish may have fallen from a joke made by some biochemist about finding biochemical evidence that some frog was really an enchanted prince.

Also, this argument reminds me of <a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Embassy/7213/3mains.html" target="_blank">this defense of Trofim Lysenko</a>. That article claimed that Lysenko had also recognized the importance of chromosomes in heredity, but that his belief in outside-of-chromosome heredity had been vindicated with the confirmation of the endosymbiosis theory of the origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts.

However, Lysenko had believed that genes simply do not exist, and that there was thus no distinction between genotype and phenotype.

scigirl

That's right: Evolution did not give us cancer, all you heathens, God did. Now everybody REPENT!

scigirl

scigirl

My answer is, "Bad news for scientific inquiry, very bad news."

However, I want to replace creationist with "non-rational and non-critical thought people." True, some creationists fall into that category (most do have rational and critical thought, they just choose not to exercize it when thinking about their own religion - imagine if they pointed their high-powered criticsm of evolution instead at their own religion: examined every piece of evidence in our <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/index.shtml" target="_blank">library</a> for instance. We'd have a lot more agnostics, that's for sure!).

I think keeping creationist beliefs out of schools is only half the story. There are a lot of strange beliefs out there, that have been either in whole or in part refuted by rational scientific inquiry (homeopathy, crystals, ufo abduction nonsense). These beliefs are not tied to any specific religious ideology.

If it were up to me, I would fight more to get rational thought, scientific inquiry and skepticism back into the schools than to keep certain kooky religious beliefs out. Of course, I believe that if the first thing really happens, the second one will too!

scigirl

scigirl

Geotheo,

With statements like that, I find it hard to believe that you used to be an "evolutionist." I urge you to study the whole theory again, and also learn about genetics. Also, your nonsense about "good and bad" mutations is clearly more evidence that you did not understand the theory the first time.

Here's a question for you: if a mutation occured that increased the activity of T cells in the immune system, is this a "good" or a "bad" mutation?

I'll be waiting for your answer. . . .

scigirl