Empirical Evidence for Evolution

I make the claim whether as a creationist or a finished study in taught evolution that maintainence of evolution theory by a theory of forces as some philosophy proposes is false and that ecological genetics must get beyond simple criticism of neutral evolution. ToE does not because some of the math in the alternative or rather purely would need be subjectively adhered to which could as an applied mathmetician be taken prima facie against the reinging interpretation of natural selection. Balanced selection need not be refuted howsomeever but examples of programs in nature would need some manifestation (information theory applied to biology) without other changes that may nonetheless be latent.

Did you read my book review in the BOOK NOOK?

Is this "new" information then classifiable as modern or post-modern? That is not a silly question for depending on how neutral the position effect (Sturtevant) pans Gould's "gold" out till it is never talked of at all mutation Can give new information. Even assuming we are not discussing differences of mutation that may be percieved in reading Wright's volumnes etc to Sarkar etc. etc. the subcelluar position of mutations along with how it went grammatically for organelles could give new information if macrothermodyamics (author = Gladyshev) recieves this "new" Darwinian narrative. Lane Lester would still be correct however that if ever not how that genetics looks in its eye and this way finds it's enemy. If I am still obscure Mark I did not give up when I was 24 and arrested in New Orleans for talking out loud and about the Pope 1996 saying Darwin and Creation go together. There is an illusion on the yellow brick road to the uncomditioned and the sooner more realize this the less fear of God it will take to turn the point.