Today's scientists know how we inherit characteristics from our parents; they are able to calculate the probability of inheriting certain traits or genetically transmitted diseases based on a family medical record. Have you ever wondered how scientists were able to achieve such powerful abilities? It all started with a monk crossing peas, he realized that there was some sort of pattern to the way the peas reproduced. This monk is now known as Gregor Mendel, father of genetics. Mendel set up a two-year experiment to see if peas reproduced in a certain pattern or if he had just observed a random change in peas. Mendel then hypothesized that traits are transmitted in a 3:1 ratio after observing this in his trail running experiment. Mendel set up an 8-year experiment where he crossed all kinds of peas. After collecting the data from his experiment and mathematically analyzing the data, he concluded that the inheritance model was, as he hypothesized, a 3:1 ratio. Mendel was rarely cited for about 34 years. In the late 19th century, two botanists/biologists rediscovered Mendel's work and confirmed a ratio of 3:1. Following this rediscovery, the original article "EXPERIMENT ON PLANT HYBRIDIZATION" was directed towards the world of genetics. The reason why Mendel was ignored is not known to this day. Some sources suggest that the article was overlooked because it was a controversy over Darwinism. The main proponent of this theory is RA Fisher. In his review, Fisher asks "what was Mendel trying to discover?" What did he discover? What did he think he discovered? “Are Mendel’s data accurate? In this essay I will focus on answering Fisher's main questions about the accuracy of the data, did Mendel discover anything new, and I will saw...... middle of article ...... suggests that "his conclusions do not follow automatically from statistics" (A. Pilpel 2007, P.619). This means that Fisher attacks Mendel's theory rationally but not scientifically. Mendel's criticisms are- Are they justified? In my opinion, Mendel has been overly criticized, his guidelines successfully prove his conclusions, the claims in his article are widely refuted and the latest statistical views are convincing enough to disprove a theory besides the fact that. both rediscoveries came to the same conclusions that Mendel "not only achieved the same results through extensive experiments with peas, which lasted for many years, as did De. Vries (the second rediscovery) and me but also gave the same explanation” (Carl Correns 1950, P.39). t. Fisher might have been right that his data might be too close to be true, but that is not a legitimate argument for saying that an "article should be read literally ».” .