6 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2019
    1. Yet, Lysenkoism is first of all a method of inserting ideology into scientific discussions. This is true for historical Lysenkoism, which appealed to Marxism-Leninism to prove Mendelian genetics wrong.

      Isn't it true also for Neo-Darwinists who disguise themselves with a fake objectivity while providing a full support for the existing world-order, and not acknowledging any potential bias they (may) have? If it's the pigheadedness that's criticized there, why isn't it framed as such? Propaganda side of biology cannot be dismissed that easily as in, say, physics, simply because biology deals with higher-level constructs that are more familiar and hence, more relevant for day-to-day life of an ordinary human being. ==> see Biology as ideology by Richard Lewontin

    2. Despite the fact that some environmentally induced changes are heritable, these effects are not stable [30Becker C. Weigel D. Epigenetic variation: origin and transgenerational inheritance.Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2012; 15: 562-567Crossref PubMed Scopus (62) Google Scholar]. Specifically, it has been shown that in large populations of Arabidopsis most ‘epi-mutations’ are labile — after only a few generations, these base-pair methylations revert to their original state. Hence, epigenetic modifications in plants are of very limited significance for evolutionary processes. Accordingly, neo-Lamarckian (including Lysenkoist) concepts have been experimentally refuted by these trans-generational epigenetic analyses [30Becker C. Weigel D. Epigenetic variation: origin and transgenerational inheritance.Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2012; 15: 562-567Crossref PubMed Scopus (62) Google Scholar].

      Just one citation and that to an opinion article? Interesting...

  2. Feb 2018
    1. The fact that not being able to discern exactly when the FPS began shows how the whole question of genre is about feel. It's about the point when a body of similar works has mapped out the boundaries of what they're interested in - what they are and what they aren't - and when there's no clear leader any more.
    2. Most genres bubble up outside the mainstream industry, built by modders and tinkerers, amateurs and enthusiasts. In these 'folk games' it's sometimes hard to find a single originator or author, instead groups of people feeding from each other, freely copying, rearranging and rebuilding to develop and refine a core concept. The best ones find audiences and rapidly grow, even as they're still evolving
    3. The point is that the general concept of the battle royale has grown almost naturally from wider culture, the evolving nature of online tech and modding scenes
    4. That transformation, in which a new genre has originated, is a fascinating mirror of the wonderful way ideas merge and evolve, spread and multiply, skating through inspiration and invention, copying and stealing.