3.c) Laws of Mendel
The theory of Mendel, contrary to that of Darwin, has always been a clear and simple example of the application of inductive reasoning. Some controlled experiments give place to a theoretical interpretation that, within its context, is refutable. However, we must keep in mind that the interpretation was made according to the existing knowledge of those times.
We have to recognize that it has never been attempted to present the theory of Mendel or the laws of Mendel as a theory of evolution (due to the distortion of the meaning of evolution) since the combination of genes, in of itself, does not produce traits different from the originals.
The fact that the laws of Mendel introduce previously unknown elements or mechanisms does not help the theory of Darwin much either. It is no surprise that its contribution was ignored by the scientific community for 50 years; a difficult case to understand if it was not for the explanation that the sociology of science offers us.
Due to the dynamics that evolution implies, and given the multiple advantages of the sexual differentiation, the General Theory of the Conditional Evolution of Life (GTCEL) understands that the laws of Mendel or, in general, the theory of Mendel has provided a great contribution to the theory of evolution in its correct meaning. Moreover, that it maintains its applicability with the appropriate conceptual corrections.
The initial interpretation of the laws of inheritance does not raise any problems since it is accepted and the general advancement of science updates it; however, what can indeed pose some serious problems is the way in which schools explain the theory of Mendel.
The concept of the dominant and recessive gene in the laws of Mendel is explained with an approach that is a little archaic and, of course, where there can be certain conceptual difficulties, such as “What happens when two dominant genes come together?” They resort to concepts like co-dominance because the genetic mechanisms, that actually are unknown, make it so that a gene or piece of individual genetic code behaves as if it is dominant or recessive. In many cases, scientists know those genetic mechanisms, at least partially, but what happens is that they cannot explain them easily, based on the simple concept of dominance in the context of general randomness.
A little more difficult to clarify, with the classic idea of the laws of Mendel, would be the concept of co-recession.
From the point of view of the Conditional Evolution, the concepts of dominant and recessive genes derived from the laws of Mendel alter by their own essence on the evolutionary process. A gene is not dominant or recessive but rather it behaves like it is dominant or recessive depending on which other gene we compare it to (this idea is also shared by classic thought). However, most importantly (due to being a new concept contributed by the alternative theory of Conditional Evolution, the behavior depends on the restrictions or conditions of development of the genetic information that they contain. We can cite as the most common example the verification or non-verification of the genetic information.
Currently, due to the relevancy of Mendel’s laws, it cannot be enough to say that a gene is dominant or recessive; it has to argue why a gene acts dominant by explaining the causes of such behavior. Largely, the concept maintains its original meaning because it is associated with the idea of genes with discrete characteristics (red, white, pink, but not shades in full evolution) because it is more convenient for the prevailing and mistaken notion of evolution.
The basic concepts of the dominant gene and the recessive gene in the laws of Mendel cease making sense and, in the event of maintaining some sense, the concepts turn out to be completely incorrect. As we will see later, the so-called recessive gene ends up being the most powerful and evolved in the cases in which the verification is one of the conditions associated with the genetic information transmitted. Consequently, the Conditional Evolution changes the terminology, categorizing that the gene that behaves like a dominant gene as a significant gene (in a manner of speaking, because it is not exactly that which occurs as will be explained later) in a certain process.