You may have a point. But is all biology evolution? Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells are among those who don't seem to think so. Also, as I understand it, Mendel's theories are largely independent of Darwin's theories, and Mendelian genetics was initially rejected by Darwinists. That successful (falsifiable but not falsified) Mendelian genetics has been adopted in a modern “Darwinian” synthesis may say more about the merits of Mendel's theories than about the merits of Darwin's theories.
In this particular case, change (or lack thereof) in mitochondrial DNA are used to make estimates. These estimates appear to support the “myths.” This is surprising and important to those who believed the relayed tale was a myth. Perhaps it's not so important to those who believed the relayed story.
If one accepts the utility of genetic analysis to find times of common descent, as this article does, then what is the justification for accepting some findings of common ancestry and rejecting others?
There is no logical basis for doing so.
Darwin theorized that something was capable of change during inheritance. Mendel seemed to show that genetics were passed down unchanged. Once we found that the “something” was DNA, both observations make perfect sense. DNA is not only capable of change, it is impossible to keep exactly the same; yet the rate of change is so slow that Mendel's observations also make perfect sense.
The fact that scientists use both Mendel and Darwin's theories over one hundred years later; and that those who use their works are in a unprecedented golden age of discovery and utilization - goes a long way towards showing that Behe and Wells are two incompetents in the business of selling books to the credulous, and not actually producing anything of value within science.