Posted: Nov 14, 2022 1:20 am
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel
Even Mendel wasn't exactly sure of the unit of inheritance - invisible factors are not a good scientific basis on which to build claims. This is presumably why his work wasn't immediately recognized, but took the arisal of the Darwinian paradigm for its relevance to be understood.
The reason why his work came to be appreciated is because of the robust series of experiments he performed, and the detailed notes he kept, together with mathematical descriptions of the observed relationships - i.e. he had empirical evidence and a logical and well-supported explanation for that empirical evidence that could be independently corroborated - you know, all the stuff you don't have.
Even then, it wasn't until some 70 or 80 years later that the gene was first actually directly observed through advances in x-ray crystallography, but all the evidence necessitated such an observation (i.e. scientific prediction).
So no, Darwin wasn't aware of any of this. You've clearly not read On the Origin, as you've pretended to many times, or else you wouldn't keep repeating this mistake.
Is there any honesty or truth to any of your interactions here, Paul, or is it all just public masturbation?
Mendel worked with seven characteristics of pea plants: plant height, pod shape and color, seed shape and color, and flower position and color. Taking seed color as an example, Mendel showed that when a true-breeding yellow pea and a true-breeding green pea were cross-bred their offspring always produced yellow seeds. However, in the next generation, the green peas reappeared at a ratio of 1 green to 3 yellow. To explain this phenomenon, Mendel coined the terms "recessive" and "dominant" in reference to certain traits. In the preceding example, the green trait, which seems to have vanished in the first filial generation, is recessive and the yellow is dominant. He published his work in 1866, demonstrating the actions of invisible "factors"—now called genes—in predictably determining the traits of an organism.
Even Mendel wasn't exactly sure of the unit of inheritance - invisible factors are not a good scientific basis on which to build claims. This is presumably why his work wasn't immediately recognized, but took the arisal of the Darwinian paradigm for its relevance to be understood.
The reason why his work came to be appreciated is because of the robust series of experiments he performed, and the detailed notes he kept, together with mathematical descriptions of the observed relationships - i.e. he had empirical evidence and a logical and well-supported explanation for that empirical evidence that could be independently corroborated - you know, all the stuff you don't have.
Even then, it wasn't until some 70 or 80 years later that the gene was first actually directly observed through advances in x-ray crystallography, but all the evidence necessitated such an observation (i.e. scientific prediction).
So no, Darwin wasn't aware of any of this. You've clearly not read On the Origin, as you've pretended to many times, or else you wouldn't keep repeating this mistake.
Is there any honesty or truth to any of your interactions here, Paul, or is it all just public masturbation?