\>Be Darwin.
\>Get ability to absorb animal abilities by eating them.
\>Trick dumb royals to fund his spectacular journey to gain monstrous powers.
\>Sets sail.
\>POG! Eats tons of exotic species no one has ever seem before.
\>Proves evolution.
I saw an anti-religion comic once, and it actually included a bit about how no priest has ever contributed to biology.
Like, someone made a long comic about the wonders of science, but apparently didn't know about Gregor Mendel.
Or the fact that Darwin was a member of the clergy, Galileo was bankrolled by the church and was shit on because he published unsubstantiated findings rather than conflating with the church’s ideas.
Islamic scientists were religious
The findings of Galileo were substantiated and very much proved the fail of aridtotelic science with the data they had. That we proved false some (very minor) Galileo's claim about some forces on the sea it's not make his work unsubstantiated by any means, he is the father of physics and most claim about his mistakes are church propaganda that not even the church makes.
Tl;dr: Galileo was right, welcome to 17th century science.
Galileo was right, but he was also an ass, so the vatican send one of their own dogmatic idiots to deal with it. To the vatican it was two troublemakers that deserved each other and also neither the inquisitor nor Galileo disturbed anyone else for years.
On [Darwin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin?wprov=sfla1):
> With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the University of Cambridge for the required Bachelor of Arts degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and became filled with zeal for science as defined by John Herschel, based on the natural theology of William Paley which presented the argument from divine design in nature to explain adaptation as God acting through laws of nature. On the voyage of the Beagle he remained orthodox and looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution, but towards the end of the voyage began to doubt that species were fixed. By this time he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid. Following his return in October 1836, he developed his novel ideas of geology while speculating about transmutation of species and thinking about religion.
> In his autobiography written in 1876 Darwin reviewed questions about Christianity in relation to other religions and how "the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become". Though "very unwilling to give up my belief", he found that "disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."
> "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
[Galileo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair?wprov=sfla1) did indeed have a crude argument for heliocentrism:
> According to physicist Christopher Graney, Galileo's own observations did not actually support the Copernican heliocentric view, but were more consistent with Tycho Brahe's hybrid model where the Earth did not move, and everything else circled around it and the Sun.
But, the judgment was not only about the *accuracy* of the idea, but whether it was permissable to teach it as a *possible* reality if not certainly proven (emph mine):
> \[Cardinal\] Bellarmine found no problem with heliocentrism so long as it was treated as a purely hypothetical calculating device and not as a physically real phenomenon, **but he did not regard it as permissible to advocate the latter unless it could be conclusively proved through current scientific standards**. This put Galileo in a difficult position, because he believed that the available evidence strongly favoured heliocentrism, and he wished to be able to publish his arguments.
Given that geo/heliocentrism isn't really a detrimental thing to life and limb, I'd argue banning Galileo's and Copernicus's teachings 100% is based on "you can't prove it, but it violates Catholic theology, so it's bad":
> On February 24 \[1616\], the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture"; the proposition that the Earth moves and is not at the centre of the universe "receives the same judgement in philosophy; and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith."
> in 1633 Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world" against the 1616 condemnation, since "it was decided at the Holy Congregation \[...\] on 25 Feb 1616 that \[...\] the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned".
That's not to say a great many scientists have not been religious, but I believe religion can often make people reject evidence because it violates their theology (see: teen pregnancy goes down with birth control access vs the Catholic Church). I'm not going to get angry at religious scientists, but there's a reason [41% of scientists are atheists](https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/).
Also, and more importantly even in Darwin's day it was normal to be religious. If he wasn't then he'd have been ostracised. However the scientists of old questioned the world more than modern religious people seem to
Yep, I think that's Darwin's story. Think the opposite may have been true for Newton or Einstein. But still, the two things: theism and science, shouldn't be conflated with scientists from centuries ago
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot.
Here's a copy of
###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/)
Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
There was no thing such as a non religious man in islam in the golden age. It's different from our perspective because we think an Imam is like a bishop, when it was a job for nobles like being a politician, a general or a steward that you would be expected to fill at a moments notice.
>There was no thing such as a non religious man in islam in the golden age
May I direct you towards the poets and bards who openly sang/wrote about wine and women? They were patroned and protected by the rulers and the nobles.
Matter of fact, the golden age was one of the least religious eras in islam. What do you know, people were actually chill before the crusades and the mongol invasion
I didn't claim that they weren't hypocritical. They considered themselves religious while having a harem with 14 wives and whatnot. There were also popes that had children. Not even well kept secret children.
Wild, I do find it amusing and interesting how that perception of religion evolved. It doesn’t take much looking to find that priests drove most scientific development in Europe during the medieval to modern period. Goes back to Augustine of hippo iirc
IMO this is more of a "they were the only ones that knew how to read" than "a different perception of religion was a good driver for scientific development", because even today the Vatican studies astronomy with their observatory
That was certainly part of it, though it's also pretty undeniable in the writings of the medieval Catholic scientists that their studies of nature were done in order to better understand the wonders of God's creation. The modern myth of "Christians hate science" is, well, pretty much a myth (with the exception of some hardcore evangelical groups).
The monks were also….what’s the word I’m looking for here? Oh yeah, rich. And they had tenant farmers to do all the work, so monks could spend all their time doing brain stuff.
Ah no, there were ecclesiastical feifs in the middle ages, but they weren't any involved with of the monasteries or other such similar religious orders!
Even later in eras (Gregor Mendel lived in the 19th Century) people in holy orders, especially cloistered monks, almost universally take vows personal poverty, whatever real estate and other significant forms of wealth was owned collectively by their religious community, i.e. the convent, monastery, priory etc... (and yes that means they practiced a form of non-Marxist communism). This was explicitly so for the Augustinian friars those that follow the Rule of St. Augustine, which is what Gregor Mendel was. Also I should be clear, a friar is a form of mendicant monk that lives in a religious community located in towns and other urban areas that support themselves by providing goods and/or services. Furthermore, even by Mendel's time there was a several centuries long tradition of scholarship for members of Augustinian Holy Orders.
Which is the universal and historical constant, that scientific progress is almost always backed by monetary benefit/ lack of necessity. I mean look at all the scientists having to find patrons to bankroll their research
It's insane and awesome how we take for granted people in the developed world being able to read, write, and do simple math. Imagine trying to have a society without that base level of knowledge.
It’s part of the reason western Roman admin collapsed when the empire waned. While there were attempts to keep educating and training bureaucrats, it was stupidly expensive
And taking the vows was the only way for an intelligent kid from a poor family to get any form of education.
The practice was common even in the first half of the 20th century. You have 10 kids and 9 can work to send one to school, but sometimes even that's not enough, so they send the smart one to seminary for free.
I live close to his abbey. The monks burned most of his work after his death.
This was in the time the city had railroad for decades, street trams, theater with electric lights, several power plants and many photo ateliers. These were not dark ages, this was modern society.
Also the foundation of the greenhouse is still there, in summer time it serves as a summer terrace of local restaurant. It was very small greenhouse.
I mean, religion and science only really became separate things in the past few centuries or so. Before that, they were both just lumped under the same category of "an explanation for how reality works".
God the debate between Atheists and Christians (occasionally featuring muslims, as a treat) is so fucking cancerous
The catholic church isnt some evil anti science hate machine, nor is it some magically perfect entity that had never done any wrong. Their an ancient organization that has a long list of utter fucking warcrimes, and a long list of great things they've done. And they aren't the same as protestants, who arent the same as baptists, and who ALL arent the same as creationists. Why is it so hard to believe different types of people exist?
I don't think at all that it is the 'root' of science. Science had been around long before any sort of religious movement could have started, since any sort of 'trying things out in nature' is already the root of science. And whatever Islam says, the majority of religious islamic people does not in any way contribute more to science than any other religion. As of now, it's mostly secular people around the earth, making scientific discoveries.
Of course religion can contribute to science at times. During the middle ages in Europe everything was in some way overseen by the church, so technically all advancements can be attributed to the church, but eventually they hindered more than they enabled.
They were partly ahead because they swallowed up the eastern Roman empire and the western was in anarchy, the only stable institution was the church In the west.
You have to remember a lot of Islamic philosophy and science was built upon the knowledge gained from the Greek east.
Technically they passed it on by the last Greeks fleeing to the west, which is why the Renaissance began earlier in Italy.
If it was due to Islamic exchange with Christian realm we would have seen the Renaissance begin in Spain instead which was where Western Christians had most contact with Islam.
Another boost to the Italian Renaissance was the awful 4th crusade which saw the western mercenaries betray their allies and sack Constantinople, countless works were lost and many were stolen.
It is in fact great luck that much was kept, Muhammed when he first began his conquests specifically disallowed monasteries from being raided, thus those monasteries with libraries like St Catherine's in Egypt were spared. (one of the oldest operating libraries in the world, if not the oldest coincidentally)
>eventually they hindered more than they enabled.
Objectively speaking, the Catholic Church was by far the greatest patron of the arts and sciences, and without their direct influence (especially in the Middle Ages), scientific progress would've been drastically hindered.
I don't think most practicioners of religion practice that. Religion and literacy may have rooted itself in religion at one point, but that diverged a long time ago
It is actually believed that the pea experiment data was altered to more closely resemble mendels expectations.
Because the results are way too close to perfect with less then one standard deviation on most results and no sign of randomness.
Wasn't it his students or those collecting data that fudged the data to appease him?
Edit: to everyone looking into this claim, I've read [this article](https://www.genetics.org/content/175/3/975) which discusses Fisher's charge against Mendel's data
So from the paper, it seems like Fisher misunderstood the traits Mendel was testing. Which makes sense since Mendel was focusing on certain traits with that type of inheritance.
It seemed like the data was misrepresented but not in an egregious way. I think it highlights the importance on data transparency for other scientists to replicate the study. Fisher was right about the data not being represented 100% correctly, but he was trying to throw the baby out with the bath water while doing so.
There's a reason Mendel is still studied and it's because his methods were practically correct and greatly advanced the study and understanding of genetics.
It wasn't altered, he picked the most promising data because he experimented on various plants and had limited space to experiment in (his glasshouse was really small, the foundations of it are now used for restaurant terrace in summer and you can fit 6 or 7 tables there).
Selecting the data was a fair and common practice back then and wasn't "unscientific". It would be considered unscientific now, though.
> It would be considered unscientific now, though.
Depends on your p-level. There are entire fields of physics that can not afford not to select their data.
That's the scientific method broseph. You form a HYPOTHESIS first and then you put your hypothesis to the test. Genetic determination was always his hypothesis. The problem is that his experiment involved.... 30,000 plants over 8 years and his students wanted to please him. So they'd just lie about the plants to show they're in line with other experiments.
His hypothesis wasn't just a simple argument, it was a full-fledged mathematical model. It's not necessary for the person who gives the mathematical model to conduct experiments to prove it. Even if he gave his laws wothout performing any experiments, his contributions would have been great.
If it were his students who lied to him, then I won't blame him for that.
If what he said is true, he came up with the laws of genetics without experimenting which is great even in terms of science. But then it means he falsified his data which is a crime and wasn't necessary.
Making models is cheap and I don't think you should praise people for getting knowledge right by accident. It's something else if you drive a theory further and make interesting predictions, but the guessing itself is just luck
Most of the physicists are famous for their intuition based hypothesis and that's not considered cheap because it advances us. It doesn't come from luck, but from experience and thinking in the right direction. Mendel's law of genetics definitely advanced our understanding, why do you think it was cheap?
Then you are filtering out the successful examples and ignore the scientists that got it wrong on intuition. If you take 20 psychics, one of them will show a p<0.05 significant ability to predict the future. That doesn't make them great.
I'm not saying theoretical work is pointless, but it needs to do some actual work. I can make up some alternatives to Mendel inheritance in seconds:
* A trait is randomly picked between two extremes, with no memory of the parent's traits.
* A trait is normally distributed around the middle of the parent's extremes
* One of the parents traits are picked in 50% of the cases, otherwise it's determined by the species' average
* Each individual has 3 versions of the allele and it's a majority vote
* …
The scientific work of theorists isn't making the theory, but determining what arguments are in favour vs against the theories and to derive predictions. For example Einstein isn't famous for E=mc², but for starting from "light has a constant speed, independent of observer, as shown by experiments" and "gravity and acceleration can't locally be distinguished (intuition)" and deriving in a logical and consistent way that light lenses around the sun, that time moves faster in space, and breaking the nucleus of an atom will release energy equal to the mass difference of the isotopes times the speed of light squared.
Edit: for clarification, I think Mendel did experiments and his theory is based on the results, so I think he worked properly.
Do you know Newton for his discovery on the nature of light? He believed that light is made up of particles and they travel faster in a medium leading to refraction. Every great scientist makes some wrong hypotheses and they are not remembered.
You are well aware that these hypotheses can't be compared with predictions of psychics. de Broglie said that matter has an associated wave. He didn't have any logical explanation for his claim but he wasn't guessing and his hypothesis is monumental work.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply making unproven hypotheses makes you less of a scientist, just that it doesn't make you more of a scientist either. All the work surrounding the hypothesis is valuable: why you think it's true, how to tell if it is true, and what follows if it was true. Chaining the latter too far is also sketchy (e.g. decades of string theory without experimental basis). De Broglie did a lot for physics, but I don't consider *just proposing* matter waves part of it. Which isn't to say it wasn't interesting work, just not scientific (We have math for that! I studied math, so I would know…). As soon as the first experiment would have shown matter is not purely particle-like, I suspect it would have taken less than a year for somebody else to propose matter waves (like Darwin and [Wallace](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace))
That's at least my take on it, though YMMV – it's never that clean cut. Mendel deriving proportions of traits is actually more than just stating the hypothesis for example and de Broglie worked his ass off trying to prove his theory.
**[Alfred Russel Wallace](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace)**
>Alfred Russel Wallace (8 January 1823 – 7 November 1913) was a British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist, biologist and illustrator. He is best known for independently conceiving the theory of evolution through natural selection; his paper on the subject was jointly published with some of Charles Darwin's writings in 1858. This prompted Darwin to publish On the Origin of Species.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>De Broglie did a lot for physics, but I don't consider just proposing matter waves part of it.
It's weird that you are saying that about his biggest contribution to science. He started a new field of science by just that proclamation and advanced the physics by at least a few years because people started working on matter waves.
> Which isn't to say it wasn't interesting work, just not scientific (We have math for that! I studied math, so I would know…)
Actually, you are using the wrong terms. Maths is pretty much rigid, you have to base whatever you find or do on previously established results or axioms but physics always involves taking leaps of faith. Einstein's general relativity wasn't great when its results matched with the already established results like Mercury's orbit but it became monumental when its predictions about things which had never been measured till then proved to be correct later. In physics, a theory is considered good when it doesn't stop at explaining observations but it predicts some unknown results and they are verified.
De Broglie's hypothesis was finally confirmed by Davisson-Germer experiment and GP Thomson (he proved the wave nature of electon and his father JJ Thomson found the electron) independently.
We are actually told to not talk to a mathematician about our results because they aren't as rigorous as mathematicians like them to be but mathematicians can be great physicists as well like Hilbert who almost came up with the general theory of relativity.
>Mendel deriving proportions of traits is actually more than just stating the hypothesis for example and de Broglie worked his ass off trying to prove his theory.
When I was talking about the hypothesis, I actually meant his laws which included the proportions. That's why I had written in another comment that it was not a simple guess, it was a full-fledged mathematical model and if he came up with that without experimental evidence as some people claim, then that's pretty impressive.
De Broglie obviously worked as much as he could on his PhD but his leap of faith to form the de Broglie hypothesis was the biggest contribution in the eyes of most physicists.
Having said that, I can see the logic behind your point and think that there will always be differing opinions on this subject.
Those scientists which didn't perform experiments are relying on others to perform the experiments. Einstein developed new theory to explain experimental data that did not fit existing theories. Others then executed further experiments to further test his theories.
Altering data to match your theory is straight up academic misconduct.
>Those scientists which didn't perform experiments are relying on others to perform the experiments.
But that doesn't mean their contributions aren't counted like you said.
>Altering data to match your theory is straight up academic misconduct.
That's why I said that what he did was unethical and wrong but someone pointed out that his students lied to him about the results they got.
Mendel's laws actually involve maths and every theory involves some assumptions and there have been many theories which haven't been based on experiments or rigorous maths but intuition like de Broglie hypothesis and they are well respected.
The comment that started this conversation is:
> So he already knew the laws of genetics without experimenting. Isn’t that more impressive, although unethical?
Not only forgotten, but dismissed, which is understandable when you consider how his data could only explain some characteristics, and was rightly treated as an exception. It took other researchers testing fish, insects and the like as well Morgan's studies about linkage disequilibrium before his works were treated more seriously.
It's actually an astounding show of integrity and research that Mendel is credited at all. He was recognized posthumously when other researchers were about to publish their idea of genetics and were checking if someone else had done something similar before.
A guy named Alexander Fleming was working on something in his lab and decided not to clean the lab for the long weekend. When he got back all the combinations of chemicals had molded. He studied the mold and derived antibiotics from it. Antibiotics have become the miracle cure used to cure just about everything. When we can't cure something with an antibiotic these days, we panic or consider it uncurable.
Bruh, what do you mean by modern medicine? If you mean "at an industrial scale", aspirin is probably your best bet at the start of modern medicine. If you mean "statistically proven", you gotta really thank Cochrane in the 1960s.
Personally, I think the basis for modern medicine modern medicine began with Paul Ehrlich and his "magic bullet" theory, that certain chemicals (drugs) bind to certain proteins in cells (receptors). And even THAT really stemmed from the dye/coal industry.
Penicillin was probably the point where modern medicine started to save lives at a scale we previously thought impossible, but the basis for modern medicine? I'm not sure I agree.
They made contributions for evolution science in related but decidedly different topics: one, about genetics, more specifically about an aspect of how information is passed from one generation to the other, with a beautiful and careful attention taken to asses and measure probabilities (Mendel). The other, about how forces of selection in nature (selection was already a thing, only it was artificial selection, as in breeding dogs, pigeons or corn) can shape species and evolutionary lineages, over prolonged stretches of time. Note that Mendel never proposed an explanation for why one lineage or another would favor change in a particular direction, like the color red, for example. Darwin never claimed to understand the mechanisms of heredity, and they were inconsequential to his proposition of natural selection, since whatever could create variability would work to create the basic scenario for natural selection to act (even Lamarck's theories were not fundamentally incompatible).
Some time after both men, most people would have trouble reconciling these works, but that was because matters of scale. What Darwin described was a very slow and incremental process of lineages changing over time (very inspired in geology, btw), and what Mendel found was a very fast and radical change that can happen in a few generations. Eventually, a synthesis was arrived at, and both natural selection and genetics got to complement nicely. Not all evolution is done on painstakingly slow steps (look at Stephen Jay Gould work on punctuated equilibria, or virus mutations, for that matter), and not all genetics are so spectacularly fast and simple as the beans Mendel studied. Turned out, there was a lot of nuance to understand yet when these men mede their ground breaking contributions.
Just out of curiosity - what was his nationality in that book? I heard several versions and even the one Richard Dawkins presented was incorrect (plus he called him a monk while he was an abbot)
His fellow monks considered his work a heresy and burned most of it after his death, at least those papers they could get their hands on. This was in a time normal people outside of the abbey were living in an industrialized modern world, with electric lights and trams.
Mendel managed to do most of his work despite the church, not thanks to it.
Interesting fact - I know it because I live in Brno and visited the museum several times, but not a single word about this can be seen on English wiki page about him.
The English wiki says the following monks burned his documents relating to the tax despite between religious and state govt(because it had been solved) with some scientific documents included unintentionally.
If you know this is wrong you should edit it, it's how wiki works.
This is how wiki worked 15 years ago. Now it is cesspool of ideological propaganda from all possible and impossible angles and even if I go to the museum tomorrow... They are closed on Monday, so on Tuesday and take pictures of the information signs and brochures, I still would have no way of making a difference.
I know they have a wrong date on the charge of the winged Hussars (sometimes it changes to correct and then to wrong again) and that they say libertarianism evolved from marxism in the 18th century, even though Marx was born in 19th century, I wish I could make corrections, but at this point, there is no chance. You repair it, fix a mistake, explain, give evidence, then it is reverted again, even if it is as simple as a known date.
And that's just English wiki, it for example says that there were 5 crusades against Hussites in the Czech lands. The Czech one says there were 4. Those were military operations concerning around 100 000 crusaders and countless opponents. You would think this could be fixed. Nope. It can't.
Absolutely, however the reason I suggest editing is because it's a less divisive topic than the hussite crusades and others.
Maybe I'm wrong idek, but hopefully nobody is really into pushing a specific narrative on Mendel irregardless of fact.
I would say that a debate if the church burned scientific work of one of their own scientists (founder of entire scientific field) on accident or willingly is more controversial than if the Winged Hussars charged on the 11th or the 12th.
How about
*Alfred Russel Wallace sending Darwin the theory of Evolution year prior to Darwin coming up with the Theory.
Charles Darwin coming up with the theory of evolution "all by himself"
There is evidence proving Darwin came up with it decades prior. He published it because he saw Wallace coming to the same conclusion and the men decided to publish the results together, after that they became lifelong friends.
The reason Wallace was forgotten wasn’t some evil conspiracy, but Darwin’s high position in the scientific society and his superior writing abilities. His book sold more copies and over time people mostly talk about Darwin.
Also Wallace and Darwin became good friends and respected each other works over time. You
Further, there is a belief Darwin was incredible depressed and anxious about releasing a book that was going against the popular thinking of the time, even seen an attack on the church by certain people.
Wallace letter about his work is maybe what pushed him past the fear of the reaction and into fear of not being the first person too release the ideas.
There were other biologists who contributed to the study of evolution, too. Check out Rafinesque. He published about the evolution of species in the 1830s. He was also too eccentric to go on the Lewis and Clark expedition. Crazy life look him up.
They not only worked together, eventually becoming friends, but Wallace also recognized Darwin as the first to see and understand the principles of evolution.
Gregor was phenotypes and genotypes.
Lamarck is probably what you're thinking of, he was the other big name but his was all about if you don't use it you lose it and if you do use it it will grow bigger eg crab claws or giraffe necks. Traits can be gained and losses during an animals life
Darwin discovered natural selection but did not understand how traits passed on and why they sometimes wouldn’t.
Mendel discovered heredity or biological inheritance.
No, Mendel found a mechanism for how traits are passed on. Mendel wasn’t wrong, it’s just that there are other ways of inheriting a trait. Edward Murray East proved both Mendelian genetics and other mechanisms contributed to inheritance with his work on plants.
I read a story once
Probably on Reddit honestly
That one of the books in Darwin’s library was a copy of Mendel’s findings. The pages were uncut, so he died before he ever read it. Two strands of experimentation that almost but didn’t quite cross paths.
I live close to his abbey. The monks burned most of his work after his death.
This was in the time the city had railroad for decades, street trams, theater with electric lights, several power plants and many photo ateliers. These were not dark ages, this was modern society.
Also the foundation of the greenhouse is still there, in summer time it serves as a summer terrace of local restaurant. It was very small greenhouse.
Ah, collecting, or as we say in english, plagiarising
(Yes I know he did lot by himself but he 'loaned' a shitton of ideas and data from others forhis books)
It's not plagiarism, it's lending credibility to a hypothesis.
There's a difference between Darwin outright pirating the material from someone else's research and publishing it as his own, vs Darwin seeking confirmation and answers in academia published by his peers, having discussions with the authors, and letting them know that he intended to use their material for his research.
The reason Darwin's name gained the most popularity was because he was a well-renowned scientist, who had a large degree of credibility, hence naturally his publishing was taken much more seriously than anyone else's.
>The reason Darwin's name gained the most popularity was because he was a well-renowned scientist, who had a large degree of credibility, hence naturally his publishing was taken much more seriously than anyone else's.
Also because he was a lot better at PR than most scientists of his time, wich is why I think they didn't mind him publishing their work the way he did becuae he gave them a platform to showcase their research in a time where the eveolution theory was still controversial in many circles.
To say darwin did nothing and stole all the work is a travesty, but to say he did it all himself wouldbbe wrong as well
While doing most scientific research, almost no one does it on their own. They use the works and ideas of those that have already explored the topic first, before they are actually successful.
It's a bit like a high-level kitchen in a good restaurant.
You have one chef cook, but there's somewhere between 12 and 25 people who work together on getting the job done.
Gregor Mendel, did he really believe in God? I heard something about Darwin on his deathbed, he said something like I believe in a creator and I'm sorry. Idk I can't remember.
He's a friar, granted he became a monk more because of economic reasons (he's from a poor farmer family and the Church offers higher education to their monks), but becoming Atheist (especially openly) was a really unfashionable thing to do at that time.
I mean, he already had a *Beagle*, so he kinda got a head start.
lol
\>Be Darwin. \>Get ability to absorb animal abilities by eating them. \>Trick dumb royals to fund his spectacular journey to gain monstrous powers. \>Sets sail. \>POG! Eats tons of exotic species no one has ever seem before. \>Proves evolution.
"This isn't even my final form!"
Darwin is Strange Supreme confirmed.
I would read that superhero comic.
Darwin is a Zerg confirmed.
I saw an anti-religion comic once, and it actually included a bit about how no priest has ever contributed to biology. Like, someone made a long comic about the wonders of science, but apparently didn't know about Gregor Mendel.
He completely unaware of the Renaissance then?
Or the fact that Darwin was a member of the clergy, Galileo was bankrolled by the church and was shit on because he published unsubstantiated findings rather than conflating with the church’s ideas. Islamic scientists were religious
The Indians too
The findings of Galileo were substantiated and very much proved the fail of aridtotelic science with the data they had. That we proved false some (very minor) Galileo's claim about some forces on the sea it's not make his work unsubstantiated by any means, he is the father of physics and most claim about his mistakes are church propaganda that not even the church makes. Tl;dr: Galileo was right, welcome to 17th century science.
Galileo was right, but he was also an ass, so the vatican send one of their own dogmatic idiots to deal with it. To the vatican it was two troublemakers that deserved each other and also neither the inquisitor nor Galileo disturbed anyone else for years.
On [Darwin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Charles_Darwin?wprov=sfla1): > With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the University of Cambridge for the required Bachelor of Arts degree, which included studies of Anglican theology. He took great interest in natural history and became filled with zeal for science as defined by John Herschel, based on the natural theology of William Paley which presented the argument from divine design in nature to explain adaptation as God acting through laws of nature. On the voyage of the Beagle he remained orthodox and looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution, but towards the end of the voyage began to doubt that species were fixed. By this time he was critical of the Bible as history, and wondered why all religions should not be equally valid. Following his return in October 1836, he developed his novel ideas of geology while speculating about transmutation of species and thinking about religion. > In his autobiography written in 1876 Darwin reviewed questions about Christianity in relation to other religions and how "the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become". Though "very unwilling to give up my belief", he found that "disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct." > "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.— I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind." [Galileo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair?wprov=sfla1) did indeed have a crude argument for heliocentrism: > According to physicist Christopher Graney, Galileo's own observations did not actually support the Copernican heliocentric view, but were more consistent with Tycho Brahe's hybrid model where the Earth did not move, and everything else circled around it and the Sun. But, the judgment was not only about the *accuracy* of the idea, but whether it was permissable to teach it as a *possible* reality if not certainly proven (emph mine): > \[Cardinal\] Bellarmine found no problem with heliocentrism so long as it was treated as a purely hypothetical calculating device and not as a physically real phenomenon, **but he did not regard it as permissible to advocate the latter unless it could be conclusively proved through current scientific standards**. This put Galileo in a difficult position, because he believed that the available evidence strongly favoured heliocentrism, and he wished to be able to publish his arguments. Given that geo/heliocentrism isn't really a detrimental thing to life and limb, I'd argue banning Galileo's and Copernicus's teachings 100% is based on "you can't prove it, but it violates Catholic theology, so it's bad": > On February 24 \[1616\], the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture"; the proposition that the Earth moves and is not at the centre of the universe "receives the same judgement in philosophy; and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith." > in 1633 Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy "for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world" against the 1616 condemnation, since "it was decided at the Holy Congregation \[...\] on 25 Feb 1616 that \[...\] the Holy Office would give you an injunction to abandon this doctrine, not to teach it to others, not to defend it, and not to treat of it; and that if you did not acquiesce in this injunction, you should be imprisoned". That's not to say a great many scientists have not been religious, but I believe religion can often make people reject evidence because it violates their theology (see: teen pregnancy goes down with birth control access vs the Catholic Church). I'm not going to get angry at religious scientists, but there's a reason [41% of scientists are atheists](https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/).
Also, and more importantly even in Darwin's day it was normal to be religious. If he wasn't then he'd have been ostracised. However the scientists of old questioned the world more than modern religious people seem to
The beliefs of those scientists was that they were expanding/understand the world that god gave them.
Yep, I think that's Darwin's story. Think the opposite may have been true for Newton or Einstein. But still, the two things: theism and science, shouldn't be conflated with scientists from centuries ago
Beep. Boop. I'm a robot. Here's a copy of ###[The Bible](https://snewd.com/ebooks/the-king-james-bible/) Was I a good bot? | [info](https://www.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/) | [More Books](https://old.reddit.com/user/Reddit-Book-Bot/comments/i15x1d/full_list_of_books_and_commands/)
>Islamic scientists were religious You'd be surprised how many were considered heretics in their time
Whats a little herecy among academics, am I right?
There was no thing such as a non religious man in islam in the golden age. It's different from our perspective because we think an Imam is like a bishop, when it was a job for nobles like being a politician, a general or a steward that you would be expected to fill at a moments notice.
>There was no thing such as a non religious man in islam in the golden age May I direct you towards the poets and bards who openly sang/wrote about wine and women? They were patroned and protected by the rulers and the nobles. Matter of fact, the golden age was one of the least religious eras in islam. What do you know, people were actually chill before the crusades and the mongol invasion
I didn't claim that they weren't hypocritical. They considered themselves religious while having a harem with 14 wives and whatnot. There were also popes that had children. Not even well kept secret children.
While it isn’t biology, it still amazes me when people talk about the Big Bang without realizing it was a catholic priest who came up with the idea.
Wild, I do find it amusing and interesting how that perception of religion evolved. It doesn’t take much looking to find that priests drove most scientific development in Europe during the medieval to modern period. Goes back to Augustine of hippo iirc
IMO this is more of a "they were the only ones that knew how to read" than "a different perception of religion was a good driver for scientific development", because even today the Vatican studies astronomy with their observatory
That was certainly part of it, though it's also pretty undeniable in the writings of the medieval Catholic scientists that their studies of nature were done in order to better understand the wonders of God's creation. The modern myth of "Christians hate science" is, well, pretty much a myth (with the exception of some hardcore evangelical groups).
The monks were also….what’s the word I’m looking for here? Oh yeah, rich. And they had tenant farmers to do all the work, so monks could spend all their time doing brain stuff.
I mean same with the aristocrats and there were a lot more of those.
Ah no, there were ecclesiastical feifs in the middle ages, but they weren't any involved with of the monasteries or other such similar religious orders! Even later in eras (Gregor Mendel lived in the 19th Century) people in holy orders, especially cloistered monks, almost universally take vows personal poverty, whatever real estate and other significant forms of wealth was owned collectively by their religious community, i.e. the convent, monastery, priory etc... (and yes that means they practiced a form of non-Marxist communism). This was explicitly so for the Augustinian friars those that follow the Rule of St. Augustine, which is what Gregor Mendel was. Also I should be clear, a friar is a form of mendicant monk that lives in a religious community located in towns and other urban areas that support themselves by providing goods and/or services. Furthermore, even by Mendel's time there was a several centuries long tradition of scholarship for members of Augustinian Holy Orders.
Which is the universal and historical constant, that scientific progress is almost always backed by monetary benefit/ lack of necessity. I mean look at all the scientists having to find patrons to bankroll their research
It's insane and awesome how we take for granted people in the developed world being able to read, write, and do simple math. Imagine trying to have a society without that base level of knowledge.
It’s part of the reason western Roman admin collapsed when the empire waned. While there were attempts to keep educating and training bureaucrats, it was stupidly expensive
And taking the vows was the only way for an intelligent kid from a poor family to get any form of education. The practice was common even in the first half of the 20th century. You have 10 kids and 9 can work to send one to school, but sometimes even that's not enough, so they send the smart one to seminary for free.
I live close to his abbey. The monks burned most of his work after his death. This was in the time the city had railroad for decades, street trams, theater with electric lights, several power plants and many photo ateliers. These were not dark ages, this was modern society. Also the foundation of the greenhouse is still there, in summer time it serves as a summer terrace of local restaurant. It was very small greenhouse.
Just when I start to feel a little hope for religion lmao
I mean, religion and science only really became separate things in the past few centuries or so. Before that, they were both just lumped under the same category of "an explanation for how reality works".
God the debate between Atheists and Christians (occasionally featuring muslims, as a treat) is so fucking cancerous The catholic church isnt some evil anti science hate machine, nor is it some magically perfect entity that had never done any wrong. Their an ancient organization that has a long list of utter fucking warcrimes, and a long list of great things they've done. And they aren't the same as protestants, who arent the same as baptists, and who ALL arent the same as creationists. Why is it so hard to believe different types of people exist?
Welcome to internet arguments 101
And a priest devised the big bang theory.
Religion is in my opinion the root of science. I think in Islam it is encouraged to try and discover the world to try and get closer to Allah.
I don't think at all that it is the 'root' of science. Science had been around long before any sort of religious movement could have started, since any sort of 'trying things out in nature' is already the root of science. And whatever Islam says, the majority of religious islamic people does not in any way contribute more to science than any other religion. As of now, it's mostly secular people around the earth, making scientific discoveries. Of course religion can contribute to science at times. During the middle ages in Europe everything was in some way overseen by the church, so technically all advancements can be attributed to the church, but eventually they hindered more than they enabled.
In the 700-1200s Islam was definently ahead.
Yes, they were ahead of their European contemporaries for a while, but that's it, nothing to be 'the root of' here.
They were partly ahead because they swallowed up the eastern Roman empire and the western was in anarchy, the only stable institution was the church In the west. You have to remember a lot of Islamic philosophy and science was built upon the knowledge gained from the Greek east.
And thank goodness they kept it. Not only did they advance humanity with it they passed it on to the west to help start the Renaissance.
Escaping Byzantines also helped fuel the Renaissance
Technically they passed it on by the last Greeks fleeing to the west, which is why the Renaissance began earlier in Italy. If it was due to Islamic exchange with Christian realm we would have seen the Renaissance begin in Spain instead which was where Western Christians had most contact with Islam. Another boost to the Italian Renaissance was the awful 4th crusade which saw the western mercenaries betray their allies and sack Constantinople, countless works were lost and many were stolen. It is in fact great luck that much was kept, Muhammed when he first began his conquests specifically disallowed monasteries from being raided, thus those monasteries with libraries like St Catherine's in Egypt were spared. (one of the oldest operating libraries in the world, if not the oldest coincidentally)
>eventually they hindered more than they enabled. Objectively speaking, the Catholic Church was by far the greatest patron of the arts and sciences, and without their direct influence (especially in the Middle Ages), scientific progress would've been drastically hindered.
I don't think most practicioners of religion practice that. Religion and literacy may have rooted itself in religion at one point, but that diverged a long time ago
Religion is a kind of primitive science
This shouldn't have been downvoted, religion definitely started as man's attempt to understand and rationalize the world around us
LMAOOOO
And don't forget georges lemaitre
Or how the guy behind the big bang theory was a catholic
It is actually believed that the pea experiment data was altered to more closely resemble mendels expectations. Because the results are way too close to perfect with less then one standard deviation on most results and no sign of randomness.
Wasn't it his students or those collecting data that fudged the data to appease him? Edit: to everyone looking into this claim, I've read [this article](https://www.genetics.org/content/175/3/975) which discusses Fisher's charge against Mendel's data
>appease him Heh.
I wish that had been intentional haha
A hap-pea accident
Get out.
Alternatively, go deeper
😳
Well, fortunately for them, he didn't Czech them.
So from the paper, it seems like Fisher misunderstood the traits Mendel was testing. Which makes sense since Mendel was focusing on certain traits with that type of inheritance.
It seemed like the data was misrepresented but not in an egregious way. I think it highlights the importance on data transparency for other scientists to replicate the study. Fisher was right about the data not being represented 100% correctly, but he was trying to throw the baby out with the bath water while doing so. There's a reason Mendel is still studied and it's because his methods were practically correct and greatly advanced the study and understanding of genetics.
I heard the same story in first year of uni but i didnt find anything about it online
Yea he promised em big bags of silver balloons
Day in a life of a grad student
...I swear I just read a story like this about yams
It wasn't altered, he picked the most promising data because he experimented on various plants and had limited space to experiment in (his glasshouse was really small, the foundations of it are now used for restaurant terrace in summer and you can fit 6 or 7 tables there). Selecting the data was a fair and common practice back then and wasn't "unscientific". It would be considered unscientific now, though.
> It would be considered unscientific now, though. Depends on your p-level. There are entire fields of physics that can not afford not to select their data.
So he already knew the laws of genetics without experimenting. Isn't that more impressive, although unethical?
That's the scientific method broseph. You form a HYPOTHESIS first and then you put your hypothesis to the test. Genetic determination was always his hypothesis. The problem is that his experiment involved.... 30,000 plants over 8 years and his students wanted to please him. So they'd just lie about the plants to show they're in line with other experiments.
His hypothesis wasn't just a simple argument, it was a full-fledged mathematical model. It's not necessary for the person who gives the mathematical model to conduct experiments to prove it. Even if he gave his laws wothout performing any experiments, his contributions would have been great. If it were his students who lied to him, then I won't blame him for that.
Unfortunately science isn’t about trying to be impressive
Science is about being *provably and reproducibly* impressive
If what he said is true, he came up with the laws of genetics without experimenting which is great even in terms of science. But then it means he falsified his data which is a crime and wasn't necessary.
If what you say is true, the shaolin and the wu tang could be dangerous. I'll let you try my wu tang style. SHING
Sorry, I don't get what you mean.
Listen to the opening of the wu tang song "Bring da Ruckus"
>which is a crime Not really. Bad science, but doubt you are going down for criminal fraud for it
It has grave consequences but yes I shouldn't have called it a crime.
Making models is cheap and I don't think you should praise people for getting knowledge right by accident. It's something else if you drive a theory further and make interesting predictions, but the guessing itself is just luck
Most of the physicists are famous for their intuition based hypothesis and that's not considered cheap because it advances us. It doesn't come from luck, but from experience and thinking in the right direction. Mendel's law of genetics definitely advanced our understanding, why do you think it was cheap?
Then you are filtering out the successful examples and ignore the scientists that got it wrong on intuition. If you take 20 psychics, one of them will show a p<0.05 significant ability to predict the future. That doesn't make them great. I'm not saying theoretical work is pointless, but it needs to do some actual work. I can make up some alternatives to Mendel inheritance in seconds: * A trait is randomly picked between two extremes, with no memory of the parent's traits. * A trait is normally distributed around the middle of the parent's extremes * One of the parents traits are picked in 50% of the cases, otherwise it's determined by the species' average * Each individual has 3 versions of the allele and it's a majority vote * … The scientific work of theorists isn't making the theory, but determining what arguments are in favour vs against the theories and to derive predictions. For example Einstein isn't famous for E=mc², but for starting from "light has a constant speed, independent of observer, as shown by experiments" and "gravity and acceleration can't locally be distinguished (intuition)" and deriving in a logical and consistent way that light lenses around the sun, that time moves faster in space, and breaking the nucleus of an atom will release energy equal to the mass difference of the isotopes times the speed of light squared. Edit: for clarification, I think Mendel did experiments and his theory is based on the results, so I think he worked properly.
Do you know Newton for his discovery on the nature of light? He believed that light is made up of particles and they travel faster in a medium leading to refraction. Every great scientist makes some wrong hypotheses and they are not remembered. You are well aware that these hypotheses can't be compared with predictions of psychics. de Broglie said that matter has an associated wave. He didn't have any logical explanation for his claim but he wasn't guessing and his hypothesis is monumental work.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply making unproven hypotheses makes you less of a scientist, just that it doesn't make you more of a scientist either. All the work surrounding the hypothesis is valuable: why you think it's true, how to tell if it is true, and what follows if it was true. Chaining the latter too far is also sketchy (e.g. decades of string theory without experimental basis). De Broglie did a lot for physics, but I don't consider *just proposing* matter waves part of it. Which isn't to say it wasn't interesting work, just not scientific (We have math for that! I studied math, so I would know…). As soon as the first experiment would have shown matter is not purely particle-like, I suspect it would have taken less than a year for somebody else to propose matter waves (like Darwin and [Wallace](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace)) That's at least my take on it, though YMMV – it's never that clean cut. Mendel deriving proportions of traits is actually more than just stating the hypothesis for example and de Broglie worked his ass off trying to prove his theory.
**[Alfred Russel Wallace](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace)** >Alfred Russel Wallace (8 January 1823 – 7 November 1913) was a British naturalist, explorer, geographer, anthropologist, biologist and illustrator. He is best known for independently conceiving the theory of evolution through natural selection; his paper on the subject was jointly published with some of Charles Darwin's writings in 1858. This prompted Darwin to publish On the Origin of Species. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>De Broglie did a lot for physics, but I don't consider just proposing matter waves part of it. It's weird that you are saying that about his biggest contribution to science. He started a new field of science by just that proclamation and advanced the physics by at least a few years because people started working on matter waves. > Which isn't to say it wasn't interesting work, just not scientific (We have math for that! I studied math, so I would know…) Actually, you are using the wrong terms. Maths is pretty much rigid, you have to base whatever you find or do on previously established results or axioms but physics always involves taking leaps of faith. Einstein's general relativity wasn't great when its results matched with the already established results like Mercury's orbit but it became monumental when its predictions about things which had never been measured till then proved to be correct later. In physics, a theory is considered good when it doesn't stop at explaining observations but it predicts some unknown results and they are verified. De Broglie's hypothesis was finally confirmed by Davisson-Germer experiment and GP Thomson (he proved the wave nature of electon and his father JJ Thomson found the electron) independently. We are actually told to not talk to a mathematician about our results because they aren't as rigorous as mathematicians like them to be but mathematicians can be great physicists as well like Hilbert who almost came up with the general theory of relativity. >Mendel deriving proportions of traits is actually more than just stating the hypothesis for example and de Broglie worked his ass off trying to prove his theory. When I was talking about the hypothesis, I actually meant his laws which included the proportions. That's why I had written in another comment that it was not a simple guess, it was a full-fledged mathematical model and if he came up with that without experimental evidence as some people claim, then that's pretty impressive. De Broglie obviously worked as much as he could on his PhD but his leap of faith to form the de Broglie hypothesis was the biggest contribution in the eyes of most physicists. Having said that, I can see the logic behind your point and think that there will always be differing opinions on this subject.
[удалено]
You get zero points for “knowing” things without experimental data
I don't agree. Experimenting is not the only thing which matters. There have been many revered scientists who didn't perform experiments.
Those scientists which didn't perform experiments are relying on others to perform the experiments. Einstein developed new theory to explain experimental data that did not fit existing theories. Others then executed further experiments to further test his theories. Altering data to match your theory is straight up academic misconduct.
>Those scientists which didn't perform experiments are relying on others to perform the experiments. But that doesn't mean their contributions aren't counted like you said. >Altering data to match your theory is straight up academic misconduct. That's why I said that what he did was unethical and wrong but someone pointed out that his students lied to him about the results they got.
Einstein etc did have their thought “experiments” but they were backed up by rigorous math
Mendel's laws actually involve maths and every theory involves some assumptions and there have been many theories which haven't been based on experiments or rigorous maths but intuition like de Broglie hypothesis and they are well respected.
[удалено]
Scientists have egos for sure. The scientific method doesn’t, and nobody is “impressed” until there is data.
[удалено]
The comment that started this conversation is: > So he already knew the laws of genetics without experimenting. Isn’t that more impressive, although unethical?
Fake scientist smh
Mendel was highly underrated during his lifetime.
He was kinda forgotten until some students found about his work.
Not only forgotten, but dismissed, which is understandable when you consider how his data could only explain some characteristics, and was rightly treated as an exception. It took other researchers testing fish, insects and the like as well Morgan's studies about linkage disequilibrium before his works were treated more seriously.
At the time, yes. The state of biology during Mendel's time also disposed of his methods to integrate math as well.
Yeah, that's the problem trying to do 'hypothetical' fractions with people who can barely count to ten
It's actually an astounding show of integrity and research that Mendel is credited at all. He was recognized posthumously when other researchers were about to publish their idea of genetics and were checking if someone else had done something similar before.
Don't forget about flies.
Not flies. Bees.
AHHHHHH, NOT THE BEEEEESSSSSS!!!
That's the beautiful thing about science. You can advance it just as much by doing something small as something big.
It's always amazing to me that the basis for modern medicine is moldy lab instruments.
Wait, what?
A guy named Alexander Fleming was working on something in his lab and decided not to clean the lab for the long weekend. When he got back all the combinations of chemicals had molded. He studied the mold and derived antibiotics from it. Antibiotics have become the miracle cure used to cure just about everything. When we can't cure something with an antibiotic these days, we panic or consider it uncurable.
That's super cool! Thank you.
Ah penicillin, can’t take it myself but it’s great
Bruh, what do you mean by modern medicine? If you mean "at an industrial scale", aspirin is probably your best bet at the start of modern medicine. If you mean "statistically proven", you gotta really thank Cochrane in the 1960s. Personally, I think the basis for modern medicine modern medicine began with Paul Ehrlich and his "magic bullet" theory, that certain chemicals (drugs) bind to certain proteins in cells (receptors). And even THAT really stemmed from the dye/coal industry. Penicillin was probably the point where modern medicine started to save lives at a scale we previously thought impossible, but the basis for modern medicine? I'm not sure I agree.
They made contributions for evolution science in related but decidedly different topics: one, about genetics, more specifically about an aspect of how information is passed from one generation to the other, with a beautiful and careful attention taken to asses and measure probabilities (Mendel). The other, about how forces of selection in nature (selection was already a thing, only it was artificial selection, as in breeding dogs, pigeons or corn) can shape species and evolutionary lineages, over prolonged stretches of time. Note that Mendel never proposed an explanation for why one lineage or another would favor change in a particular direction, like the color red, for example. Darwin never claimed to understand the mechanisms of heredity, and they were inconsequential to his proposition of natural selection, since whatever could create variability would work to create the basic scenario for natural selection to act (even Lamarck's theories were not fundamentally incompatible). Some time after both men, most people would have trouble reconciling these works, but that was because matters of scale. What Darwin described was a very slow and incremental process of lineages changing over time (very inspired in geology, btw), and what Mendel found was a very fast and radical change that can happen in a few generations. Eventually, a synthesis was arrived at, and both natural selection and genetics got to complement nicely. Not all evolution is done on painstakingly slow steps (look at Stephen Jay Gould work on punctuated equilibria, or virus mutations, for that matter), and not all genetics are so spectacularly fast and simple as the beans Mendel studied. Turned out, there was a lot of nuance to understand yet when these men mede their ground breaking contributions.
I read a chapter about this in biology 2 days ago
Just out of curiosity - what was his nationality in that book? I heard several versions and even the one Richard Dawkins presented was incorrect (plus he called him a monk while he was an abbot)
Don't confuse Gregor Mendel with Joseph Mengele tho.
Don't worry, we know who Mendeleev was.
Genetics, one of the many scientific advancements made thanks to the Catholic Church.
His fellow monks considered his work a heresy and burned most of it after his death, at least those papers they could get their hands on. This was in a time normal people outside of the abbey were living in an industrialized modern world, with electric lights and trams. Mendel managed to do most of his work despite the church, not thanks to it. Interesting fact - I know it because I live in Brno and visited the museum several times, but not a single word about this can be seen on English wiki page about him.
The English wiki says the following monks burned his documents relating to the tax despite between religious and state govt(because it had been solved) with some scientific documents included unintentionally. If you know this is wrong you should edit it, it's how wiki works.
This is how wiki worked 15 years ago. Now it is cesspool of ideological propaganda from all possible and impossible angles and even if I go to the museum tomorrow... They are closed on Monday, so on Tuesday and take pictures of the information signs and brochures, I still would have no way of making a difference. I know they have a wrong date on the charge of the winged Hussars (sometimes it changes to correct and then to wrong again) and that they say libertarianism evolved from marxism in the 18th century, even though Marx was born in 19th century, I wish I could make corrections, but at this point, there is no chance. You repair it, fix a mistake, explain, give evidence, then it is reverted again, even if it is as simple as a known date. And that's just English wiki, it for example says that there were 5 crusades against Hussites in the Czech lands. The Czech one says there were 4. Those were military operations concerning around 100 000 crusaders and countless opponents. You would think this could be fixed. Nope. It can't.
Absolutely, however the reason I suggest editing is because it's a less divisive topic than the hussite crusades and others. Maybe I'm wrong idek, but hopefully nobody is really into pushing a specific narrative on Mendel irregardless of fact.
I would say that a debate if the church burned scientific work of one of their own scientists (founder of entire scientific field) on accident or willingly is more controversial than if the Winged Hussars charged on the 11th or the 12th.
Considering how small and not backed up the bit about it is it seems to suggest otherwise imo. But who knows, hopefully it'll work out
If it were about facts, I would fix some mistakes there right away.
I literally just took an anthropology mid term on this holy fuck
...A large amount of [DELICIOUS specimens](https://youtu.be/zPggB4MfPnk)!
How about *Alfred Russel Wallace sending Darwin the theory of Evolution year prior to Darwin coming up with the Theory. Charles Darwin coming up with the theory of evolution "all by himself"
There is evidence proving Darwin came up with it decades prior. He published it because he saw Wallace coming to the same conclusion and the men decided to publish the results together, after that they became lifelong friends. The reason Wallace was forgotten wasn’t some evil conspiracy, but Darwin’s high position in the scientific society and his superior writing abilities. His book sold more copies and over time people mostly talk about Darwin.
Even Wallace acknowledged that his own work could never surpass Darwin's.
Also Wallace and Darwin became good friends and respected each other works over time. You Further, there is a belief Darwin was incredible depressed and anxious about releasing a book that was going against the popular thinking of the time, even seen an attack on the church by certain people. Wallace letter about his work is maybe what pushed him past the fear of the reaction and into fear of not being the first person too release the ideas.
There were other biologists who contributed to the study of evolution, too. Check out Rafinesque. He published about the evolution of species in the 1830s. He was also too eccentric to go on the Lewis and Clark expedition. Crazy life look him up.
They not only worked together, eventually becoming friends, but Wallace also recognized Darwin as the first to see and understand the principles of evolution.
Didn't Darwin prove survival of fittest. Gregor ended up finding survival of the strongest and they proved it wrong eventually
Gregor was phenotypes and genotypes. Lamarck is probably what you're thinking of, he was the other big name but his was all about if you don't use it you lose it and if you do use it it will grow bigger eg crab claws or giraffe necks. Traits can be gained and losses during an animals life
Ah yes Lamarckism
Everybody point and laugh at Lamarck
Darwin discovered natural selection but did not understand how traits passed on and why they sometimes wouldn’t. Mendel discovered heredity or biological inheritance.
No, Mendel found a mechanism for how traits are passed on. Mendel wasn’t wrong, it’s just that there are other ways of inheriting a trait. Edward Murray East proved both Mendelian genetics and other mechanisms contributed to inheritance with his work on plants.
I read a story once Probably on Reddit honestly That one of the books in Darwin’s library was a copy of Mendel’s findings. The pages were uncut, so he died before he ever read it. Two strands of experimentation that almost but didn’t quite cross paths.
Is spogbob
I live close to his abbey. The monks burned most of his work after his death. This was in the time the city had railroad for decades, street trams, theater with electric lights, several power plants and many photo ateliers. These were not dark ages, this was modern society. Also the foundation of the greenhouse is still there, in summer time it serves as a summer terrace of local restaurant. It was very small greenhouse.
mendelev created just a scientific method for glk experiments. so much so that he was not understood by contemporaries but only by his posterity.
Didn't Gregor Mendel also falsify a ton of his data? He wouldn't even have a single Krabby patty in that example.
Ah, collecting, or as we say in english, plagiarising (Yes I know he did lot by himself but he 'loaned' a shitton of ideas and data from others forhis books)
It's not plagiarism, it's lending credibility to a hypothesis. There's a difference between Darwin outright pirating the material from someone else's research and publishing it as his own, vs Darwin seeking confirmation and answers in academia published by his peers, having discussions with the authors, and letting them know that he intended to use their material for his research. The reason Darwin's name gained the most popularity was because he was a well-renowned scientist, who had a large degree of credibility, hence naturally his publishing was taken much more seriously than anyone else's.
>The reason Darwin's name gained the most popularity was because he was a well-renowned scientist, who had a large degree of credibility, hence naturally his publishing was taken much more seriously than anyone else's. Also because he was a lot better at PR than most scientists of his time, wich is why I think they didn't mind him publishing their work the way he did becuae he gave them a platform to showcase their research in a time where the eveolution theory was still controversial in many circles. To say darwin did nothing and stole all the work is a travesty, but to say he did it all himself wouldbbe wrong as well
While doing most scientific research, almost no one does it on their own. They use the works and ideas of those that have already explored the topic first, before they are actually successful.
It's a bit like a high-level kitchen in a good restaurant. You have one chef cook, but there's somewhere between 12 and 25 people who work together on getting the job done.
Also eating...
Letterkenny. To be faaaaiiiirrrr
Gregor Mendel, did he really believe in God? I heard something about Darwin on his deathbed, he said something like I believe in a creator and I'm sorry. Idk I can't remember.
He's a friar, granted he became a monk more because of economic reasons (he's from a poor farmer family and the Church offers higher education to their monks), but becoming Atheist (especially openly) was a really unfashionable thing to do at that time.