I was more confused about why a patsoc would support lysenkoism
but anyway to address your point, I don't think Lysenkoism is any wronger than Darwinism.
I think it was used in an inappropriate context, because in agriculture, each plant is given more or less the exact same start, and even if one seed happens to have a favorable start due to its parent having one, it still doesn't matter because nobody should care about "treating all seedlings equally"--you'd have to be a raw vegan fruitarian before reaching that level lmao
However, early genetic determinists (aka darwinists) totally opposed heritability of environmental changes (lysenko/lamarckists), similar to how Lysenko thought environmental heritability was the primary or only form of heritability. Both were wrong.
oh for sure. modern epigenetics is a counter to any notion of strict genetic determinism but tbh you don't even need to go that far - height is only fully heritability when the environment remains constant, for example.
height is also epigenetic. There are studies showing that better protein quality not only makes rats bigger, but makes their offspring who are deprived of the protein bigger as well.
There is probably some kind of "hard genetic limit" up to which this can occur though
I know, I meant that such was visible before the advent of epigenetic understanding. it was plainly visible that people who ate better grew taller, and that taller parents had taller kids even when their family history would suggest that tallness just kind of magically appeared in the family, even if we didn't understand the precise mechanism by which this occurs.
I was more confused about why a patsoc would support lysenkoism
but anyway to address your point, I don't think Lysenkoism is any wronger than Darwinism.
I think it was used in an inappropriate context, because in agriculture, each plant is given more or less the exact same start, and even if one seed happens to have a favorable start due to its parent having one, it still doesn't matter because nobody should care about "treating all seedlings equally"--you'd have to be a raw vegan fruitarian before reaching that level lmao
However, early genetic determinists (aka darwinists) totally opposed heritability of environmental changes (lysenko/lamarckists), similar to how Lysenko thought environmental heritability was the primary or only form of heritability. Both were wrong.
deleted by creator
oh for sure. modern epigenetics is a counter to any notion of strict genetic determinism but tbh you don't even need to go that far - height is only fully heritability when the environment remains constant, for example.
height is also epigenetic. There are studies showing that better protein quality not only makes rats bigger, but makes their offspring who are deprived of the protein bigger as well.
There is probably some kind of "hard genetic limit" up to which this can occur though
I know, I meant that such was visible before the advent of epigenetic understanding. it was plainly visible that people who ate better grew taller, and that taller parents had taller kids even when their family history would suggest that tallness just kind of magically appeared in the family, even if we didn't understand the precise mechanism by which this occurs.