>"Thinking about what kind of science one might do around evolution, the neutral theory seems like a very natural thing to test against. It seems useful to disp

>"Thinking about what kind of science one might do around evolution, the neutral theory seems like a very natural thing to test against. It seems useful to disprove that a hypothesis might be part of a separate or competing theory." Apparently this "neutral theory" was compared to some data (ie tested) and found to be lacking in its current form. I didnt check the details so cant comment further on that. However, I don't see how that says anything about which competing theory should be adopted.