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 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.
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, Institute of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, Scotland, UK. j.w.porteous@abdn.ac.uk
John W
JW
Porteous
D049672:History, 19th Century; D008957:Models, Genetic; D019370:Observation; D012106:Research / Q000266:history*