Mendel wasn't entirely right

At first blush this sounds as though there is a mechanism for error control coding in the genome of these plants. Maybe the authors should go to the EE department and chat with some communications engineers.

Well it's a loose analogy, but it would be interesting to understand
algorithmically (if that is possible) what is going on with the mechanism here.

This whole "Darwin vs. Mendel" business is strange. It bespeaks someone conceiving of scientific ideas as developed by a few Great Patriarchs. That's not how it works. In actuality scientific ideas are usually developed incrementally by a cast of thousands, and the Big Names more often than not are individuals who were in the right place at the right time to make a major synthesis.Actually, religions don't really work like that either, most relogious ideas and texts are the product of a cast of characters...of course, those of fundamentalist mindset don't want to admit this either...

The point was that this "If you can't trust Mendel, how can you trust Darwin" line of argument is fallacious in that it reveals a fairly unrealistic picture of how the scientific process works.The point wasn't to disparage Mendel, but to point out that even if his ideas need modification this has no bearing on the scientific process in general or "what Big Name can't you trust now".

It's yet another example of how even a relatively intelligent creationist leaps at a perceived Silver Bullet that he thinks will bring down the edifice of evolution and vindicate his already preconceived dogmas.