Abstract:
The paper by the Augustinian friar Gregor Johann Mendel “Experiments on Plant Hybridization” laid the foundation of the new field of knowledge, genetics, 150 years ago. It claimed that any character was determined by two factors. On the one hand, the Mendelian idea of binary coding of a character was inspired by Christian Doppler, with whose department Mendel was contacting for seven years. On the other hand, the regularities discovered by Mendel confirmed the intuitive notion of the divine principle based on rational foundations. Pythagoras was the first to point to the spiritual grounds of being. The world had been created by the number, and the number is a nonmaterial and insensuous entity. All students of heredity before Mendel traced the fate of a character in a succession of generations. Instead, to unveil the heredity mechanism, Mendel traced the fates of two invisible factors that determined the character. Probably, the ideas of binary combinations and mathematical probabilistic variants arose from Mendel’s long meditation and an imaginary experiment. Experiments on pea crosses were undertaken just in order to test the idea of a set of invisible determinants. Methods borrowed from statistical physics allowed Mendel to decrypt the process occurring in experiments with the pea model: The fate of a character was determined by action of two invisible factors.
About The Author:
О. V. Trapezov. Institute of Cytology and Genetics SB RAS, Novosibirsk, Russia, Russian Federation
References:
1. Arkhetip i simvol: Sb. rabot Yunga. M., 1991.
2. Borodin I.P. Ocherki po voprosam oplodotvoreniya v rastitel’nom tsarstve. Mir Bozhiĭ. 1903a;4:257-272.
3. Borodin I.P. Ocherki po voprosam oplodotvoreniya v rastitel’nom tsarstve. Mir Bozhiĭ. 1903b;11:199-210.
4. Borodin I.P. Ocherki po voprosam oplodotvoreniya v rastitel’nom tsarstve. Mir Bozhiĭ. 1903v;12:255-274.
5. Volodin B.G. Mendel’ (vita aeterna). 1969.
6. Geĭzenberg V. Ponimanie v sovremennoĭ fizike. Fizika i filosofiya. Chast’ i tseloe: Per. s nem. M.: Nauka, 1989.
7. Ger’e. V. Blazhennyĭ Avgustin. Ger’e Vladimir Ivanovich. M.: T-vo Pechatnya S.P. Yakovleva, 1910.
8. Golovko N.V. Kartina mira i metodologicheskiĭ realizm: teoreticheskie i operatsionnye ogranicheniya v epistemologii. Novosibirsk: Parallel’, 2007.
9. Goran V.P. Perelomnye etapy istorii evropeĭskoĭ filosofii: teoretiko-metodologicheskie problemy issledovaniya. Filosofiya nauki. 1999;1(5):1-19.
10. Darvin Ch. Proiskhozhdenie vidov putem estestvennogo otbora ili Sokhranenie blagopriyatnykh ras v bor’be za zhizn’. SPb.: Nauka. S.-Peterburgskoe otd-nie, 1991.
11. Kël’reĭter Ĭ.G. Uchenie o pole i gibridizatsii rasteniĭ. M.; L.: OGIZ-Sel’khozgiz, 1940.
12. Konstantinov N.N. Razmyshleniya o Timofeeve-Resovskom. Nikolaĭ Vladimirovich Timofeev-Resovskiĭ: Ocherki. Vospominaniya. Materialy. M.: Nauka, 1993.
13. Litovka I.I. Istoriya protonauki i teoreticheskie modeli razvitiya nauki. Filosofiya nauki. 2008;4:31-48.
14. Litovka I.I. Matematika drevnego Egipta: paradoksy dvoichnogo schisleniya. Filosofiya nauki. 2006;1(28):61-86.
15. Lyusyĭ A.P. Skvoz’ simvoly. Dialektika simvolizatsii/desimvolizatsii kak fundamental’noe osnovanie prikladnoĭ kul’turologii. Voprosy filosofii. 2009;10:48-59.
16. Mendel’ G. Opyty nad rastitel’nymi gibridami. Tr. Byuro po prikl. botanike. 1910;3(11):479-529.
17. Negeli K. Proiskhozhdenie estestvenno-istoricheskogo vida i ponyatie o nem. M.: tip. Lazarevskogo inst., 1866.
18. Petukhov S.V. Giperkompleksnye chisla, geneticheskoe kodirovanie i algebraicheskaya biologiya. Metafizika. 2012;3(5):64-86.
19. Puankare A. O nauke. M.: Nauka, 1983.
20. Rokitskiĭ P.F. Vvedenie v statisticheskuyu genetiku. Minsk: Vysheĭsh. shk., 1978.
21. Sachkov Yu.V. Veroyatnost’ kak zagadka bytiya i poznaniya. Vopr. filosofii. 2006;1:80-94.
22. Spenser G. Osnovaniya biologii. 1899;II.
23. Chaĭkovskiĭ Yu.V. Aktivnyĭ svyaznyĭ mir. Opyt teorii evolyutsii zhizni. M.: Tov-vo nauch. izdaniĭ KMK, 2008.
24. Yur’evich A.V. Tenevaya nauka. Vestnik RAN. 2006;3:234-241. Yakovlev V.A. Metafizika: evristicheskie programmy i printsipy nauki. Filosofiya nauki. 2013;1(56):3-19.
25. Barbour J. Religion in an age of science: The Gifford Lectures, 1989-1991. N.Y., 1990;1:3-30;66-92.
26. Fisher R.A. Has Mendel’s Work Been Rediscovered? Ann. Sci. 1936;1(2).
27. Foke V. Pflanzenmischlingen. 1881.
28. Kölreuter‘s J.G. Vorläufige Nachricht von einigen das Geschlecht der Pflanzen betreffenden Versuchen und Beobachtungen. Leipzig: in der Gleditschischen Handlung, 1766.
29. Kohn A. False Prophets: Fraud and Error in Science and Medicine. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1986.
30. Kuhn T.S. A Function for Thought Experiments, reprinted in T. Kuhn, The Essential Tension, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1977:240-265.
31. Meijer O.G. Hugo de Vries no Mendelian? Ann. Sci. 1985;42:189232.
32. Provine W.B. The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics. Chicago; London: Chicago Univ. Press, 1970;90-129.
33. Russel R.J., Wegter-McNell K. Science and Theology: Mutual Interaction. Bridging Science Religion (Ed. T. Peters, G. Bennett). L., 2003:19-34.
34. Sorensen R.A. Thought experiments and the epistemology of laws. Can. J. Philosophy. 1992;22:15-44.
35. Sturtevant A. The History of Genetics. N.Y.: Harper and Row, 1965. Weiling F., Hat J.G. Mendel bei seinen Versuchen «zu genau» gearbeitet? — Der χ2 test und seine Bedentung für die Beurteilung gene-
36. tischer Spaltungsverhältnisse. Der Züchter. 1966;36(8). Weizsacker C.F. von. Probability and Quantum Mechanics. Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 1973;24:321.
