• ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes but he likely forged some data. Statistics show a high probability of his pea counts with a clear 3:1 phenome split being too good to be true.

      Source: Mathematics of Life by Ian Stewart. I also visited his museum on Mendel Square, Brno.

      • kadu@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        He also discarded a lot of data that didn’t meet his proposed patterns.

        How do we know? Well, wouldn’t it be a nice coincidence if this motherfucker just casually randomly selected 13 different traits that follow simple dominance patterns - but none of the other dozens of traits that do not?

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, his research was very sound by modern standards, mostly adhering to the scientific method. It would be very untimely 200 or more years prior. His paper (even in its original form!) is understandable by any modern intelligent person who can read German cursive.

  • lugal@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    That sounds as if Darwin incorporated Mendel’s theory. He didn’t. It was much later that Mendel was rediscovered and combined with Darwinism