> > If replication were inexact, there would be no such thing as a
> > science of heredity since whether an organism inherited a trait or
> > not would be random and not predictable. Mendal and his genetic
> > experiments proved you wrong many years ago.
>
> Actually, I've read that Mendel's reported results fit so very exactly to
> the expected probabilities of a simple mathematical model that there is a
> high likelihood he fudged them (quite possibly on the premise that he
> must have erred where they varied from an otherwise neat pattern); in
> real life, the chance combinations don't come out exactly even every
> time, and there are occasional mutations to boot. This doesn't mean
> Mendel was wrong, of course! It just means that he probably
> overcorrected his results when he noted a very real pattern emerging in
> them. Both the pattern (the predictability of heredity) and the
> deviations from the pattern (random mutations and variations in
> distribution), are necessary to evolution.
Well eva, here we go again. You have attempted to discredit the lifework
of one man without a shred of evidence. Mendal's work is still taught AND
reproduced in major universities around the world, all in defiance to your
assertation that it *must* be flawed.
Too bad you don't have any legitimate research to back up your false claim.