Liberals Rediscover an Old Communist Theory on Poverty and DNA

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | May 13, 2015 | Rush Limbaugh

[olepap]

And now we are able to tweek the ever-deteriorating genome. The rich will upgrade their DNA. The rest of us will be left behind.

[Sherman Logan]

That is, of course, quite possible.

Though we are a long way from being able to make DNA changes without risking horrible unintended consequences.

[onedoug]

Nonsense does not translate well in the physical sciences; i.e., meteorology does not climatology make.

However, the closer to actual physics, the closer to actual truth.

In which, by the way, God fits in quite nicely given mathematics.

(IMHO, of course.)

[GOPsterinMA]

I’m going with TB over NYR 4-2 and CHI over ANA 4-3.

These two conference finals should be great.

[Impy]

My pics are Chi in 6, NY in 7.

[GOPsterinMA]

Nice!

[lentulusgracchus]

It has been a favorite claim of Marxists, both before Lysenko and now, as we see, since his dununciation, that environment changes genetics, and that therefore (*huge* stretch) making the world more Marxist will make the human race somehow better. The children's tale about how the fox got the white tip on his red tail illustrates the "principle" of Marxist genetics.

It has been a staple of genetics for generations that cosmic radiation and other causes can introduce genetic change; that viruses can do the same is a new discovery, but not one dispositive of either Mendel or Darwin, or affirmative of Lysenko's doctrine.

To point out that people are propounding Lysenkoism isn't "labeling" either Lysenkoism or its newest iteration. And yes, I'm beginning to repeat myself, so perhaps we should leave it here.

[Sherman Logan]

I doubt we really disagree. I was merely attempting to point out that stating a theory is X (Lysenkoist, racist, homophobic, misogynist, unchristian), even if true, does not make the theory untrue. Of itself, all the statement shows is that the theory is unpopular with certain groups.

If a theory is true, then it’s true no matter how we categorize it. Same if it’s false.

[lentulusgracchus]

The rich will upgrade their DNA. The rest of us will be left behind.

Or "below". Paging Mr. Wells, Mr. H.G. Wells, please use the white courtesy phone to call the service desk, Mr. Wells. </Off booming voice.> <Click!> <Fade in Muzak, "The Girl from Ipanema" >

[lentulusgracchus]

Marx and Lenin showed their descent from the French Romantics, especially Condorcet, who taught (erroneously) the perfectibility of Man down the centuries.

As for the photo (nice find) it would give me the crawlies, just knowing that Stalin was looking down at the back of my neck like that.

[Sherman Logan]

From a purely material standpoint, almost every single person in western countries is considerably better off than the average just a century ago.

This theory reminds me of the claim that some Indian tribes and other groups are peculiarly susceptible genetically to obesity because they have a history of intermittent starvation, so their bodies store food when available with great efficiency.

What this ignores is that until a few centuries ago, intermittent starvation was universal among humans. And a few centuries is not enough to change genetic inheritance much.

[PapaBear3625]

"Poor People’s DNA is Declining in Quality"

More like "People with poor-quality DNA are engaging in excessive breeding..."