I believe he cooked his data, but it was the 1850s, and science was still along these lines:
Watson, do you think a monkey falling out of a tree falls slower or faster than one blown out of a tree with 00 buckshot?
I do say, Alfred, what an intriguing idea. Iâll grab the shotgun and you find a rock. We will meet back here in 15 minutes and find two monkeys.
15 minutes later
Alright, on the count of three, you throw the rock at your money and Iâll pull my trigger
But itâs going to take time for the rock to get there - your shotgun is instant
Fine you throw on two, and I pull on three. Ready? One, twoâŠ
Derpenheim@lemmy.zip âš5â© âšdaysâ© ago
He also got hilariously lucky in what he was doing. Itâs worth a read into the modern-day reproductions (no pun intended) of his work to see just how unlikely he was to get his results as fast as he did.
ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.org âš4â© âšdaysâ© ago
Itâs now believed that he altered the data, since they fit the 1:3 ratios way too well for populations where each has a ÂŒ probability. Still, very good work considering he might not have heard of the scientific method.
flora_explora@beehaw.org âš4â© âšdaysâ© ago
Have you got any links? A quick search didnât show up anything in that direction, only how important Mendel was for modern geneticsâŠ
Derpenheim@lemmy.zip âš4â© âšdaysâ© ago
youtu.be/lpObkqMb2_0
This sums it up pretty well. Its, of course, not guaranteed that any fishy or particularly lucky happened, but itâs a lot simpler if it did