- Part 1 -
We continue to understand how people made money and continue to use the "corpse of Darwinism" for financial purposes. The topic is quite voluminous, especially given the "rich" history.. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to get acquainted in more detail with the sources of materialism, and highlight the views of K. Marx and F. Engels. But this can lead us to the "political steppe" … Therefore, we will only mention this curious fact:
Can you guess why a man whose main fields of activity were: economics, political philosophy, class struggle … got into the field of natural science?
Bearded men do not resemble anyone?
The theory of evolution is quickly becoming an ideological weapon. Giving the opportunity to earn extra money on pseudo-scientific books..
But how to deal with scientists who do not accept it? They criticize misinterpretations, argue for erroneous conclusions and constantly point out the absence of at least any evidence. Dying neo-Darwinism comes to the aid of a geneticist!
Where did it come from? Who invented it?
Officially, it is believed that the first hypotheses about heredity were built: Hippocrates and Democritus (460-470 BC) And this is already alarming, because domestication (domestication) has been known since time immemorial … and scientists have not yet given an unambiguous answer, how many breeds were bred (for example, pug), where did the corn come from and what a miracle:) wheat "evolved":
As the ignorant like to say: "Do not underestimate the ancient people." But back to science:)
Critical thinking
0 followers
Promotional video:
Who benefits from Darwin's theory of evolution? Part # 2 “Continuation. The Clone Wars.."
5'th of July
The federal program for the development of genetic technologies for 2019-2027 was signed by Dmitry Medvedev in April 2019.
Over eight years, 127 billion rubles are expected to be spent on the implementation of the program. Of these, 111 billion - from the federal budget, another 15.6 billion - from extra-budgetary sources …
The federal program for the development of genetic technologies for 2019-2027 was signed by Dmitry Medvedev in April 2019.
Over eight years, 127 billion rubles are expected to be spent on the implementation of the program. Of these, 111 billion - from the federal budget, another 15.6 billion - from extra-budgetary sources …
We continue to understand how people made money and continue to use the "corpse of Darwinism" for financial purposes. The topic is quite voluminous, especially considering the "rich" history …
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to get acquainted in more detail with the sources of materialism, and highlight the views of K. Marx and F. Engels. But this can lead us to the "political steppe" … Therefore, we will only mention this curious fact:
In 1873 (2 years after the publication of that same book by Darwin), Engels began to create a work devoted to the philosophy of natural science - "Dialectics of Nature", in which he wanted to give a dialectical-materialistic generalization of the achievements of natural sciences … He worked on the manuscript for 10 years, but so and didn't finish.
Can you guess why a man whose main fields of activity were: economics, political philosophy, class struggle … got into the field of natural science?
The philosophy of Marx and Engels is a materialistic reading of the philosophy of Hegel (!). In natural science, Engels designates three epoch-making discoveries: the cage, the indestructibility of movement, and the evolutionism of Charles Darwin. In the chapter on the origin of man from ape, he emphasizes
"The role of labor in the transformation of a monkey into a man."
Bearded men don't remind anyone?)
Bearded men don't remind anyone?)
The theory of evolution is quickly becoming an ideological weapon. Giving the opportunity to earn extra money on pseudo-scientific books …
But how to deal with scientists who do not accept it? They criticize misinterpretations, argue for erroneous conclusions and constantly point out the absence of at least any evidence. Dying neo-Darwinism comes to the aid of a geneticist!
Where did it come from? Who invented it?
Officially, it is believed that the first hypotheses about heredity were built: Hippocrates and Democritus (460-470 BC) And this is already alarming, because domestication (domestication) has been known since time immemorial … and scientists have not yet given an unambiguous answer, how many breeds were bred (for example, pug), where did the corn come from and what a miracle:) wheat "evolved":
So spelled one-grain has two sets of chromosomes, spelled two-grain and kamut - four, spelled and modern wheat - six. At the same time, wheat is one of the most complex crops from a genetic point of view: it has a hexaploid genome, consisting of three elementary genomes, each of which is longer than a human (a total of 21 pairs of chromosomes). The total length of the wheat genome exceeds 17 billion base pairs, it is five times the size of the human genome.
As the ignorant like to say: "Do not underestimate the ancient people." But back to science:)
Founder Saint of Genetics
2320 years after the hypotheses of other Greek philosophers … I. Mendel "took up" heredity. Who is this?
While in Vienna, Mendel became interested in the process of plant hybridization.
It should be noted that hybridogenic speciation is one of the types of sympatry; it is characteristic of a significant part of plants and only a small number of animal species. When different species are crossed, the offspring are usually sterile.
And here the most interesting thing begins … Who was able to "open" them?
Bickering for a place in the sun
In 1900, three holy trinity of scientists "rediscovered" Mendel's laws at once: the Dutchman G. de Vries, the German K. Correns and the Austrian E. Cermak. All of them sent their manuscripts of their works to one magazine - "Izvestia of the German Botanical Society", and all cited Mendel's article in the issue of Brunn's "Proceedings …" for 1866 34 years later!
Like Darwin.. Again, an incredible combination of circumstances.. Miracles and more!
But de Vries wrote in his article:
“The essential points of these provisions were established long ago by Mendel for one special case (peas). They were, however, once again consigned to oblivion and not recognized. It follows from my experiments that they are of the nature of a universal law."
A scandal erupted, colleagues accused de Vries of intending to assign someone else's priority and branded him with shame, he then "apologized for a long time":)
Before mentioning the "genetic war" (Lysenkoism)..
It is worth mentioning the notorious neo-Darwinist and zoologist A. Weisman.
One of those who recognized the inheritance of acquired traumatic signs and rejected the evidence of Weismann was I. Michurin.
To prove his point of view Michurin used the "method of raising" plants, which consisted of influencing the seedlings with various factors. T. Lysenko and his supporters contributed to the development and dissemination of Michurin's ideas. They created a direction called "Michurin agrobiology", within which "Michurin genetics" was created.
Michurinsk agrobiology denied "the law of non-inheritance of acquired characteristics of" Weismanan-Mendel-Morgan "and opposed it to" the law of inheritance of acquired characteristics of Lamarck-Michurin-Lysenko ". The existence of genes was denied, and the chromosomal theory was not accepted.
In the USSR, criticism of "Weismanism-Morganism" until 1965 was included in the compulsory school curriculum..
You noticed that defending "Darwin's materialism", Lysenko and Co. defended Lamarck's ideas? Contradictory is putting it mildly.
The Weismannists were accused of denying the inheritance of acquired traits and of using in their experiments the fruit fly, which had no practical value at all, and not economically important animals.
In 1948, after a session of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, many scientists "who were actively fighting the Michurin doctrine," including V. S. Nemchinov, A. R. Zhebrak, I. I. A. Sabinin, S. D. Yudintsev, Yu. I. Polyansky, M. E. Lobashev.
There were some casualties..
Can you imagine the scale? This is just one of the episodes of "genetic strife" … someone received awards, someone grants, and someone became a pseudo-scientist. And this is not a struggle of believing creationists against atheistic Darwinists, but a battle of "pundits". Didn't both sides have weighty arguments and evidence? This is a rhetorical question … after all, we know what an "axiom" and "a priori" are. Let's see what happened next …
Modern genetics full of wonders
It is appropriate here to recall W. Paley, whom Charles Darwin admired..
And to get acquainted with R. Dawkins …
A valiant fighter against obscurantism!
Currently, the scientific status of memetics is controversial; some scientists criticize this direction as pseudoscientific.
The Russian biologist and popularizer of science A. V. Markov characterizes Dawkins' ideas as firmly entrenched in scientific use and "based on indestructible logic." At the same time, noting that some of their fellow biologists to this day deem it good form to accuse Dawkins of the deadly sins of “genetic determinism” and “reductionism”.
Even without being a creationist, it's easy to see the lack of (indestructible) logic and reasonable reasoning. But let's focus on his achievements in genetics, which helped him earn money for a blue iPhone:)
Critics of Dawkins' approach believe that treating a gene as a unit of selection - a discrete case in which an individual either leaves offspring or not - is a mistake, since a gene is better suited to the role of a unit of evolution - long-term changes in the frequency of alleles in a population.
And here is some information about another of his best-sellers:
Enthusiastic responses from fellow earners.
The book "God as an Illusion" and several documentaries on the BBC (!) Have been criticized more than once by: biologists (K. Miller, F. Collins, D. S. Wilson) and philosophers (A. Plantinga, E. Kenny, T.. Negel, M. Ruse)
Drawing conclusions
I think that many would not refuse to receive large fees for writing a "science pop" based on someone else's long-term work … At the same time, it is not necessary to delve too much, because there are many controversial areas of science: paleontology / anthropology / history … genetics? Which pass on the criterion of falsifiability as pseudoscientific.
* Many people don't really need the truth, they just need constant confirmation that exactly what they believe in is the truth. *
I would also like to analyze some interesting cases … But firstly, the article is already too voluminous … and secondly, it is not related to Darwin. If someone is curious, you can read it here.
A short story about how the Chinese scientist Jiankui He was sentenced to three years in prison and a fine of 3 million yuan (about $ 430 thousand) for conducting an illegal experiment with the birth of twins from genetically modified embryos … and at the same time his colleagues: Renli Zhang (a year and a fine about $ 143 thousand), and Jinzhou Qin (1.5 years and a fine of about $ 71.6 thousand).. There are more details.
Moreover, in July 2016
A reason to think about what is happening in the world of science …
Thank you for attention. In the final article, we (finally) will get acquainted with the "heroes of the occasion" - the Antropogenesis.ru gang
Which inspired me to write these articles.
P. S. Do you believe in the inheritance of acquired traits?
