Dr Page's best example of common descent easily --and better-- explained by the GUToB

I have begun to wonder if the central dogma is not inviolable with the protein back onto DNA (regulation and in hairpins) is not able to return spatially seperated perversion knoweldge base in quartic twist potentials translated back to the original DNA/gene replication govnr +- point mutations by a puncutuational style biology that AIG may have appreciated. Gould may have been able to appreciate this thought but modern biochemsitry seems to have little precedent for engaging in this kind of work on the edge of chaos. As long as there is some other population genetic gene flow in the taxogeny I do not see that the central dogam need stand. Varition in hydrophobic amino acid ratios may accomplish this non-linear dynamic but I do not also see need for the 3 core Darwininsm either. It is not clear that PE itself can survive its own inheritance. THUS mutations can have the effect but we do not seem to have the science able to show this NON RANDOM MUTATION DIVISIONS. I still bet on thermoregulation to yield the tin.Another way to look at this in hind sight is that NRM my show Crick mistaken. This would be my idea of the environment of the DNA in short.

The way Gould re-framed it was to "trace" conTINental formalism vs anglophonic adaptations. I would not have made the connection to Fisher this way but this does not make GOuld "wrong" in my book. Why do you say he is wrong? Dawkins being correct has however NEVER seemed plausible to me. Obviously data tells more than opinions. I think really it was only that Gould had to deal with Mayr which Croizat rejected offright and onpoint used his birds to his own rate.I did not know about Woods Hole and orthogenesis , but now my converstation with Marjore Green AGAINST Provine makes "perfect" sense and I did not need to win a Golden Globe to agree with Gould.