Lysenko, Michurin and Epigenetics

I am here citing some sources, which clear speaks against the general notion of "main-stream" zoology and genetics towards the works to Lysenko and Michurin. If anyone start to search net with Trofim Lysenko and Ivan Michurin, what he/she will face is a good lot of "trash" about them. But, to those who have some little idea about their theories and works, I want to present the links below to them for study.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973965/
http://cigognenews.blogspot.com/2010/01/epigenetics-inheritance-of-acquired.html#comment-form
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1312341
http://www.diigo.com/bookmark/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newsweek.com%2F2009%2F09%2F17%2Fwhat-alters-our-genes.html?tab=comment
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v364/n6439/abs/364712a0.html
http://www.maverickscience.com/lamarck-vindicated.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/27/us/inheritance-of-acquired-traits-in-mice-is-reported.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,846027,00.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090412081315.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/epigenetics.html
http://kidshealth.org/parent/positive/issues_2011/2011_epigenetics.html
http://triplehelixblog.com/2011/05/epigenetics-what-it-means-and-why-you-should-care/
http://dels-old.nas.edu/envirohealth/newsletters/newsletter1_epigenetics.pdf
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-evolution-orchid-epigenetics.html
http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/23/7/781.full
http://www.sinauer.com/detail.php?id=2993
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/is-epigenetics-a-revolution-in-evolution/
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-06/foas-asc063011.php
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18925573
http://www.stembook.org/node/613
http://hstalks.com/main/browse_talk_info.php?talk_id=105&series_id=18&c=252
http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_81514.asp
http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/gene-regulation.html
http://www.xgencongress.com/epg
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/642737-is-epigenetics-a-revolution-in-evolution (This essay is a good example that how the modern findings of “epigenetics” are challenging the Neo-Darwinian version of Evolutionary Biology, just look at the defensive tone of the author and how he ignores the date regarding recent discovery of epigenetic phenomenon in higher organisms like fly, salamander, rats)

Thank you for providing these links, comrade. I will be sure to review them when time permits.

To my knowledge, Trofim Lysenko's theory of heritability was basically Lamarckian, in that he contended that traits derived in an organism's lifespan could be passed on to its progeny. While the theory clearly overstated the malleability of organisms, the hegemony of the 'modern evolutionary synthesis' in the scientific establishment has undoubtedly led to the marginalization of vast bodies of data which contradict the primacy of natural selection and orthodox Mendelism in evolution. Indeed, Lynn Margulis's uncovering of the significant role symbiogenesis has in evolution (particularly speciation events—thereby vindicating Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge's theory of punctuated equilibrium); Richard Lewontin's explanation of the dialectical relationship the between gene, organism, and environment; and epigenetics all significantly challenge the dominant theory of evolution. (Symbiogenesis in particular confirms aspects of Lamarck's theory of inheritance.)

Within the next decade or so, I believe we may witness a paradigm shift in evolutionary biology, which will displace the so-called 'modern synthesis' and the various disciplines it generated (e.g., sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.). The only factors which may inhibit this from occurring are political, since the bourgeois establishment ideologically benefits from certain interpretations of evolutionary theory.

With that said, I wouldn't necessarily associate epigenetics too strongly with Lysenkoism for the simple reason that epigenetics is basically a theory regarding how certain genes express themselves according to the environment an organism experiences, whereas Lysenkoism dealt with the aforementioned heritability of acquired characteristics.

Actually, epigenetics deals with how outcome of genes has been controlled by external environment. During the time of Lysenko, Michurin, it wasn't very clear what the internal relations between gene and environment. And if you ask me, the basic bone of contention between "modern genetics" and Lysenko, Michurin school is NOT whether acquired characters can be inherited or not, but rather whether external environmental factors can affect an organism genetically or not. The findings of modern epigenetics clearly tells on behalf of Lysenko, Michurin.

RevI wrote:And if you ask me, the basic bone of contention between "modern genetics" and Lysenko, Michurin school is NOT whether acquired characters can be inherited or not, but rather whether external environmental factors can affect an organism genetically or not.

What I've read of Lysenkoism is derived from secondary sources, so I will reserve judgement on the tenets of Lysenko's biological theories until I read his work for myself.

http://sovietlibrary.net/Library/Union%20of%20Soviet%20Socialist%20Republics/1951_Heredity%20and%20Its%20Variability_T.D.Lysenko_1951.pdf
I have searched net for a long time and found only this source mentioned above translated into English. Most probably this is the only book written by Lysenko can be found at present.
I have gone through the book and found one interesting point. I don't whether there is any genetics graduate here, but just throwing the question to all readers. What "modern genetics" say about the "vegetative hybrids"? The experiments of Michurin clearly proved that AT LEAST in case of plants, HYBRIDS CAN BE OBTAINED IN AN ASEXUAL WAY WHICH BEHAVE SAME AS SEXUALLY OBTAINED HYBRIDS.
Even the present day Russian state hasn't shown the audacity to ignore Michurin (http://russiapedia.rt.com/prominent-russians/science-and-technology/ivan-michurin). They just kept a balance with their present inclination by saying "Lysenko has used Michurin" or such kind of phrases. But the question is HOW CAN LYSENKO USE MICHURIN if the results are totally contradictory to Lysenko's theory. In "west", the mentality towards both Lysenko and Michurin are same and I have great doubt whether any of their experiments repeated with seriousness in the west. If yes, then most probably the results were suppressed. In most school-college textbooks, it has been written that "their theories weren't supported by experiment" or "their experimental results weren't repeated elsewhere, so they are doubtful". But, the question is where those repeats were organized what was the outcome, just "golden silence" and nothing else.
But, problem is, vegetative hybrids had been known for a long time. But, modern "genetics" just like to ignore this section. But, in reality just see what some modern day enthusiasts found about while doing something based on Michurin's method.
http://alanbishop.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=bp&action=display&thread=6621&page=1

Lysenkoism is 100% pseudoscience.

This is no different from discussing Astrology.

Well, this logic(?) applies to those who can't differentiate between astrology and astronomy.