Mendel wasn't entirely right

WK,
I couldn't get access to the whole paper, but I had a few questions that you might have been able to glean. 1. So, not just their pet gene?
2. Did they arrive at this homozygous recessive gene through crossing (well, I guess so since transposons typically land in more than one place as I recall)?
3. Is it possible it "mutated" back to the original sequence?Besides I agree with you in that I certainly don't think one gene in any way confounds the ToE.Lastly, the paper you cited was a polyploid plant...maybe I'm too new to the whole science arena, but I didn't find that particularly surprising.

For some reason I couldn't get acces to the paper.1. Ya know, just winging it here, but WK previously suggested this interesting paper which makes me curious about mechanisms that could act coordinately to re-establish the original template (I am in no way saying that what is suggested in the G&D paper is what is going on here...). It's just quite intriguing that this occurs only when the plant is homozygous recessive at that particular gene.2. Are SNPs in LD? Are SNPs located in coding or non-coding sequence? In the meantime I will attempt to get a hold of the entire manuscript.3. Yes, random mutation is what I meant. I've since noticed how "off" that question was. I'm guessing that once the reversion took place it was then maintained throughout subsequent generations?...hmmm...dammit I need to read it. It's not up to you to give me the cliff notes.

Then why do you keep bringing up both of them and trust?Bottom line is this report of experiments is comparable to a deserted island in the middle of nowhere. This is not meant as a criticism of the science, but to point out to you that this finding was in a very specific "strain" (not a plant person, so not sure what to call this) of a commonly studied plant (that this phenomonen has not been observed in) under very specific conditions (i.e. looking at hth). For you to then start figuring numbers for any other genes and/or genomes is laughable....you did say something about "empirical evidence", right? To think that this challenges ToE and mutations is not a well-thought out criticism.To draw an analogy this would be like the stupid bat vs. bird argument I've seen on this forum somehow convincing Phatboy or Buzsaw that Paul's trustworthiness is in question and therefore Christianity as well .As Pink told you non-Mendelian genetics is not a novel idea brought on by you and this one paper.

I'll grant the analogy was not the best or brightest, but was meant strictly to highlight that one is a lonely number and in no way calls into question the "bigger picture"....better?