Essay On Mendel

1212 Words3 Pages

These days’ scientists know how we inherit characteristics from our parents; they are able to calculate the probability of inheriting certain traits or genetically passed diseases based on a family medical record. Did you ever ask yourself how did scientists come up to such powerful capabilities? It all started with a monk crossing peas, he realized that there was some kind of pattern to how the peas reproduced. This monk is now known as Gregor Mendel father of genetics. Mendel set a two years trail experiment to see if the peas reproduce with some pattern or he had just observed random change in peas. Mendel then came up with his hypothesis that traits are passed on with a 3:1 ratio after observing this in his trail experiment. Mendel set up an 8 years experiment where he would crossbreed all sorts of peas. After collecting the data from his experiment and mathematically analysing the data he concluded that the inheritance pattern was as he hypothesized a 3:1 ratio. Mendel was rarely quoted for about 34 years. In the late 19th century two botanists/biologists had rediscovered Mendel work, they’ve confirmed a 3:1 ratio. Following the rediscovery, the original paper “EXPERIMENT ON PLANT HYBRIDIZATION” made its way towards the world of genetics. The reason why Mendel was ignored is not known till this day. Some sources suggest that the paper was overlooked since it was a controversy to Darwinism. The main supporter of this theory is R. A. Fisher. In his critique Fisher asks “what was Mendel trying to discover? What did he discover? What did he think he discovered? “Is Mendel’s data accurate? In this essay I will focus on answering Fishers main questions as to how accurate is the data, did Mendel discover anything new, and I will sci...

... middle of paper ...

...ggests “his conclusions do not follow automatically from the statistics”( A. Pilpel 2007, P.619). Meaning Fisher attacks Mendel’s theory rational but not scientifically.
Are Mendel critiques justified? To my opinion Mendel was over criticized, his guidelines successfully prove his conclusions, the allegations on his paper are well disproven, and last statistical points of view arrant enough to disprove a theory. Besides the fact both rediscover have come to the same conclusions as Mendel “not only obtained the same results through extensive experiments with peas, which lasted for many years, as did De. Vries (the second rediscover) and I but also given the same explanation” (Carl Correns 1950, P.39). t. Fisher could of been right about the point his data might be too close to be true but that’s not a legitimate argument to say a “paper should be read literally” .

Open Document