/sci/ - Science & Math

Genetics.

Lamarckian Evolution -> Genetics -> Darwinian Evolution

emergence came first

Evolution.
James Watson and Francis Crick lived like 70 years after Darwin died.

Mendel's first theories of genetics were first published around the same time as The Origin of Species. Unfortunately, due to most of the scientific community being preoccupied with darwin's theory the significance of his studies were ignored (Ironic since they answered some of the questions raised at the time).

I read all of the above on a book on genetics a few weeks ago, ill try and find it to get a date/year for you.

>Gregor Mendel, who is known as the "father of modern genetics", was inspired by both his professors at university and his colleagues at the monastery to study variation in plants, and he conducted his study in the monastery's two hectare[7] experimental garden, which was originally planted by the abbot Napp in 1830.[5] Between 1856 and 1863 Mendel cultivated and tested some 29,000 pea plants (i.e., Pisum sativum). This study showed that one in four pea plants had purebred recessive alleles, two out of four were hybrid and one out of four were purebred dominant. His experiments led him to make two generalizations, the Law of Segregation and the Law of Independent Assortment, which later became known as Mendel's Laws of Inheritance.
Mendel did read his paper, Experiments on Plant Hybridization, at two meetings of the Natural History Society of Brünn in Moravia in 1865. It was received favorably and generated reports in several local newspapers.[8] When Mendel's paper was published in 1866 in Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brünn,[9] it was seen as essentially about hybridization rather than inheritance and had little impact and was cited about three times over the next thirty-five years. (Notably, Charles Darwin was unaware of Mendel's paper, according to Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man.) His paper was criticized at the time, but is now considered a seminal work.

in what context are we defining genetics?
mendel++ ?

>>1992559
>Gregor Johann Mendel (July 20, 1822[1] – January 6, 1884) was an Austrian Augustinian monk

>>1992553
>>1992559
>>1992561
>>1992562
so is that a consensus?

>>1992562
>Implying monks can't be scientists
>Implying monks will not fuck up your shit

>>1992553

Darwin published his works in the late 1850s, 1860s.

The thing about Mendel is, he went essentially unnoticed until the early 20th century.

Famous story has it that Darwin had a copy of Mendel's work, but didn't get around to reading it. If he had, he would have realized the significance and Mendel's work would have been famous overnight.

So to answer OP, evolution, then genetics.

>>1992569
>>1992562

actually for all the Dark Ages monks were the only people in Europe doing science

from that point comes the argument "christianity did not kill teh scienze but saved them from the fall of Rome, derp"

>>1992576

Nobody did science in the Dark Ages. You can give them credit for keeping libraries, and transcribing books.

That certainly was important for human knowledge. But it wasn't science.

Also: Mendel was a very, very rare monk.

>>1992593
>Nobody did science in the Dark Ages.
Actually quite a few monks did science (in the context of studying classical texts, experimenting and making up stuff) , but off course they were not allowed to educate the public with these and were monitored not to do "devil's work".

>>1992611 devil's work = science.

Scientists are more hardcore than death metal.