Talk:Blending inheritance

Merge with soft inheritance
This discussion has been settled. Squididdily (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should insert a reference to Mendel's experiments? Khorikoshi
 * agreed. I added a reference to Mendel's seminal paper on the topic.Squididdily (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I oppose a merging; they are two totally separate concepts, and blending is of great historical importance in terms of Darwin's ideas of natural selection. 92.238.105.105 (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the term "soft inheritance" is widely known or used; I was not familiar with it, at least. I prefer to maintain a separate article for blending, as the term is common in textbooks, and is notable as the model disproven by Mendel's work. Therefore I oppose the merge. The soft inheritance article could certainly have a list of "see alsos" or just short sections referring to the main articles at "acquired characteristics" and "blending" and so on. Agathman (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I took everyone's advice and left this article on its own -- and expanded it a bit more in an attempt to once and for all bring it out of "stub"-hood and into a full fledged article....Squididdily (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice
I just want to ask editors that if they're going to contribute to the section "History", that should be written in chronological order, and it shouldn't be tendentious to defend the indefensible, without citing reliable/original sources. Thanks in advance.--Goose friend (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

An article crediting dead biologists with ridiculous, even self-contradictory, views, yet with no citations, is unacceptable as history. This article suggests that the people who accepted blending inheritance never actually defended it. So what is the evidence that there was ever a widely-accepted blending mechanism? The blending of traits happens all the time, irrespective of hereditary mechanisms, though it is nonsensical to suppose that the offspring are always in between their parents. It is not for me to revise this article. I would have to delete every line. I have tried to set the record straight on blending inheritance in Theodore M. Porter, “The Curious Case of Blending Inheritance,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 46 (2014), 125-132. Online: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848614000260 [alas you will probably need a subscription to see it]. 108.252.92.224 (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A belated reply - I have completely revised the article, and cited it. I've added a footnote about the possible confusion of blending with the thinking of the biometricians about continuous variation, cited to your paper, for which suggestion, many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"implied by contemprary theories
Before I edited, the article began thus:

Blending inheritance is a 19th century concept implied by some contemporary theories of evolution

Is the part about implied by contemporary theories true? I couldn't find anything about that in the rest of the article. --Ettrig (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Removed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)