Đang chuẩn bị nút TẢI XUỐNG, xin hãy chờ
Tải xuống
Tuyển tập các báo cáo nghiên cứu về y học được đăng trên tạp chí y học quốc tế cung cấp cho các bạn kiến thức về ngành y đề tài: We still fail to account for Mendel's observations | Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling BioMed Central Research We still fail to account for Mendel s observations John W Porteous Open Access Address Department of Molecular and Cell Biology Institute of Medical Sciences University of Aberdeen Foresterhill Aberdeen AB25 2ZD Scotland UK Email John W Porteous - j.w.porteous@abdn.ac.uk Corresponding author Published 16 August 2004 Received 10 June 2004 Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 2004 1 4 doi 10.1186 1742-4682-1-4 Accepted 16 August 2004 This article is available from http www.tbiomed.cOm content 1 1 4 2004 Porteous licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 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. Abstract 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
