Is this the same thing as Lamarckian Evolution? DanH 20:40, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
- Pretty much. Some references would probably help clarify.--Frey 12:54, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
- That question was asked 6 months ago, before the article was modified to include Lamarck. RodWeathers 13:10, 29 October 2008 (EDT)
Wait a minute. Lysenkoism was almost voodoo like in nature: If you achieve this, this and this condition, your wheat yield triples. This is, of course, a load of bollocks and the system failed because genetics do not work like that. This system was chosen over proper agricultural techniques becasue the Soviets believed that Evolution was the biological equivelant of capitalism.
So, basically, this article's full of lies. HDCase 11:02, 10 November 2008 (EST)
Creationism, Darwinism and genetics
"However, it (Lysenkoism) was disproven by genetics, not Darwinian evolution, as evolutionists like to claim."
Your statement falsely insinuates genetics being at odds with Darwisnism. I could as well say: "Lysenkoism was disproven by genetics, not Creationism, as creationists like to claim." What you actually mean is that Lysenkoism being scientifically disproven does not necessarily prove Darwinism to be right.