Cargando…

We still fail to account for Mendel's observations

BACKGROUND: The present article corrects common textbook accounts of Mendel's experiments by re-establishing what he wrote and how he accounted for his observations. It notes the long-established tests for the validity of any explanations that purport to explain observations obtained by experim...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Porteous, John W
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2004
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC516238/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15312231
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-4682-1-4
_version_ 1782121762538913792
author Porteous, John W
author_facet Porteous, John W
author_sort Porteous, John W
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The present article corrects common textbook accounts of Mendel's experiments by re-establishing what he wrote and how he accounted for his observations. It notes the long-established tests for the validity of any explanations that purport to explain observations obtained by experiment. Application of these tests to Mendel's paper shows that the arguments he used to explain his observations were internally consistent but were, on one crucial issue, implausible. The same tests are applied to the currently accepted explanation for Mendel's observations. CONCLUSIONS: The currently favoured explanation for Mendel's observations is untenable. It misrepresents Mendel, fails to distinguish between the parameters and the variables of any system of interacting components, its arguments are inconsistent, it repeats the implausibility in Mendel's paper, fails to give a rational explanation for his observed 3:1 trait ratio and cannot explain why this ratio is not always observed in experimental practice. A rational explanation for Mendel's observations is initiated. Readers are challenged to complete the process before a further article appears.
format Text
id pubmed-516238
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2004
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-5162382004-09-09 We still fail to account for Mendel's observations Porteous, John W Theor Biol Med Model Research BACKGROUND: The present article corrects common textbook accounts of Mendel's experiments by re-establishing what he wrote and how he accounted for his observations. It notes the long-established tests for the validity of any explanations that purport to explain observations obtained by experiment. Application of these tests to Mendel's paper shows that the arguments he used to explain his observations were internally consistent but were, on one crucial issue, implausible. The same tests are applied to the currently accepted explanation for Mendel's observations. CONCLUSIONS: The currently favoured explanation for Mendel's observations is untenable. It misrepresents Mendel, fails to distinguish between the parameters and the variables of any system of interacting components, its arguments are inconsistent, it repeats the implausibility in Mendel's paper, fails to give a rational explanation for his observed 3:1 trait ratio and cannot explain why this ratio is not always observed in experimental practice. A rational explanation for Mendel's observations is initiated. Readers are challenged to complete the process before a further article appears. BioMed Central 2004-08-16 /pmc/articles/PMC516238/ /pubmed/15312231 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-4682-1-4 Text en Copyright © 2004 Porteous; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Porteous, John W
We still fail to account for Mendel's observations
title We still fail to account for Mendel's observations
title_full We still fail to account for Mendel's observations
title_fullStr We still fail to account for Mendel's observations
title_full_unstemmed We still fail to account for Mendel's observations
title_short We still fail to account for Mendel's observations
title_sort we still fail to account for mendel's observations
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC516238/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15312231
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1742-4682-1-4
work_keys_str_mv AT porteousjohnw westillfailtoaccountformendelsobservations