Posted on 01/07/2011 7:24:25 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
In 1928, as America lurched towards the Wall Street Crash, Joseph Stalin revealed his master plan - nature was to be conquered by science, Russia to be made brutally, glitteringly modern and the world transformed by communist endeavour.
Into the heart of this vision stepped Trofim Lysenko, a self-taught geneticist who promised to turn Russian wasteland into a grain-laden Garden of Eden. Today, Lysenko is a byword for fraud but in Stalin’s Russia his outlandish ideas about genetic inheritance and evolution became law. They reveal a world of science distorted by ideology, where ideas were literally a matter of life and death. To disagree with Lysenko risked the gulag and yet he destroyed Soviet Agriculture and damaged, perhaps irreparably, the Soviet Union’s capacity to fight and win the Cold War.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
BTTT...Hansenism
BTTT...Hansenism
whoops
The entire idea that such a temporary change could lead to permanent changes among different populations that it could lead to the observed speciation is one without any merit.... so far.
Show me a mechanism whereby environmentally acquired traits can effect PERMINANT changes in the DNA of a species, and you might have something.
DNY methylation (epigenetics) is NOT such a mechanism.
DNA methylation (epigenetics) is NOT such a mechanism.
It certainly does.
Thanks!
We need a lot of rope!
I didn’t say there was a mechanism that changed the DNA permanently. I said some acquired traits are passed on to subsequent generations.
Solid science show it.
It does not.
Ok one more time. I didn’t say it did.
If you want a great example of this in the world of diet and obesity, read Gary Taubes’ new book, “Why We Get Fat.” Basically, it’s global warming with proteins.
I see it this way, science or not, I find it possible that plenty of politicians who preach it actually don’t believe it. What most people sometimes forget is that the road to Communism is paved by politicians setting themselves up as the Savior figure, that is use a policy to take credit for saving the state from some larger than life disaster. A good example was Stalin claiming to have saved the Soviet Union from a total collapse, but we ultimately knew that collapse had been occurring for decades, and rubbed it in their face eventually.
In today’s case, I am not claiming to know, but am saying it is possible that most of these political figures that advocate some sort of Armaggeddon really want to get the glory when this Armaggeddon they present to us in such films as “An Inconvenient Truth”, because as these great projections don’t come true, give or take a few years, these guys will be shouting and trumpeting their glory of having saved us from the disaster they predicted from Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever technobabble they like to toss around at us, and say that their increasingly draconian policies were what saved us. If organized religious groups did it, why can’t they.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.