Incorrectly? Would you please expand your thought.
The only thing that might be called an error in
his laws, that comes immediately to mind, is the
fact that he didn't allow for the small problem of
two genes being on the same chromosome -- but then
he didn't know about chromosomes. Is this what you
meant?
Your supposition is interesting, but all of his
data exhibits a too good fit.
"Robert J. MacG. Dawson" wrote:
>
> Rich Strauss wrote:
> >
> > Your point is well taken, and I didn't mean to imply dishonesty either --
> > the term "fudged" was a poor choice, but I meant it in the sense of
> > manipulation or filtering, not necessarily conscious, and I mentioned that
> > it was an assertion.
>
> I don't see any reason to suppose that it wasn't _conscious_, but there
> is no reason to suppose that it was _malicious_. One obvious hypothesis
> is that Mendel used his model (incorrectly, as we now know) to guide his
> classification of a few dubious cases.
>
> -Robert Dawson
--
Bob Wheeler --- (Reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED])
ECHIP, Inc.
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
