In a message dated 10/23/2004 1:42:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But he wasn't. His published figures are too good to be real: they don't pass a Chi-Square test, meaning that he adjusted them to look better than what he found in his experiments :-) The notion that Mendel fudged his results comes from analysis of small number statiistics.This is in turn based on the belief that the plot that he did his experiments were in was small and therefore only a few plants could be studied. In a recent bio (can't remember the name of the author) the author suggests that Mendel actually used a much larger plot (based on descriptions of the view of the plot from a specific room in the monestary) and that therefore his statistics were not fudged _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
