Lies, damned lies, and biostatistics
Neo-Darwinism is Darwinian evolution through natural selection mixed with Mendelian genetics. It is also called the modern evolutionary synthesis and it is largely based on biostatistics.
Biostatistical modeling forms an important part of numerous modern biological theories. In the early 1900s, after the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's Mendelian inheritance work, the gaps in understanding between genetics and evolutionary Darwinism led to vigorous debate between biometricians, such as Walter Weldon and Karl Pearson, and Mendelians, such as Charles Davenport, William Bateson and Wilhelm Johannsen. By the 1930s, statisticians and models built on statistical reasoning had helped to resolve these differences and to produce the neo-Darwinian modern evolutionary synthesis. The three leading figures in the establishment of population genetics and this synthesis all relied on statistics and developed its use in biology. Ronald Fisher... Sewall Wright... J. B. S. Haldane... These and other biostatisticians, mathematical biologists, and statistically inclined geneticists helped bring together evolutionary biology and genetics into a consistent, coherent whole that could begin to be quantitatively modeled.
... despite the larger victory of Mendelism - the micromutationist view won out among evolutionists by about 1930. To a considerable extent, this victory reflected the efforts of Ronald Fisher, a founding father of population genetics and a tireless champion of Darwinian gradualism. Fisher successfully fused micromutationism with Mendelism, producing a mathematical framework known as the infinitesimal model.
So because true science did not provide any evidence for their belief in macroevolution the hardnosed evolutionists added statistics to their equation. Some key evolutionists involved in this practice were Karl Pearson who contributed to theories like very anti-social social Darwinism, Walter Weldon, a fanatic naturalist, and Ronald Fisher who was a fanatic proponent of eugenics and a fanatic naturalist. He wrote...
It was Darwin's chief contribution, not only to Biology but to the whole of natural science, to have brought to light a process by which contingencies a priori improbable, are given, in the process of time, an increasing probability, until it is their non-occurrence rather than their occurrence which becomes highly improbable. ... The million, million, million ... to one chance happens once in a million, million, million ... times no matter how surprised we may be that it results in us.
Ronald Fisher serves as the prime example of a typical fanatic evolutionist who venerates Father Time in support of a fanatic belief. He invented a mathematical model based on assumptions which could be tweaked to fit with that fanatic belief. He is nicknamed a convinced Darwinian who is of course hailed by modern-day fanatic evolutionists and atheists like Richard Dawkins who call him the greatest biologist since Darwin. Fisher was mentored by Leonard Darwin who also was a eugenicist. Not surprisingly he got the Darwin Medal in 1948 from his fellow Darwinists at the Royal Society, a very powerful mainstream science organization which of course heavily promotes Darwinism. Cambridge College honoured this eugenicist with a window. Only after activists sprayed eugenics is genocide – Fisher must fall on it Cambridge College reacted with a statement saying The college is now aware of the views and actions of RA Fisher in a way that was not fully appreciated in 1989 * What a joke, everybody knows about how these sketchy figures supported eugenics. Are these people liars or simply extremely ignorant? Just goes to show again that there's not much morality to be found in the world of twisted mainstream science. Birds of a feather flock together. Now let's do a reality check on the mathematical theory of these hailed prophets of evolution...
The 'modern evolutionary synthesis' convinced most biologists that natural selection was the only directive influence on adaptive evolution. Today, however, dissatisfaction with the synthesis is widespread, and creationists and antidarwinians are multiplying. The central problem with the synthesis is its failure to show (or to provide distinct signs) that natural selection of random mutations could account for observed levels of adaptation.
How fundamental innovations (or novelties) originate in evolution remains one of the most enigmatic questions of biology. According to the proponents of the Synthetic Theory, the gradual process of evolution by natural selection that operates within populations and species also creates the unique traits recognizable at higher taxonomic levels, meaning that macroevolution is just microevolution extended over relatively long periods of time. However, it has been repeatedly pointed out that innovation is different from adaptation, and that the Synthetic Theory, which is largely based on population genetics, falls short of explaining innovations, novelties, and the evolution of body plans (Riedl, 1977; Gilbert et al., 1996; Bateman et al., 1998; Erwin, 2000; Wagner, 2000; Haag and True, 2001; Wagner and Müller, 2002; Wagner and Laubichler, 2004; Müller and Newman, 2005; Theissen, 2006).
H. Allen Orr said that There are in fact two problems. The first is that current theory is limited in several ways - all the models that have been mentioned rest on important assumptions and idealizations... The second problem concerns testability. In reality these mathematical theories show that there is no biological evidence and that fanatic evolutionists do everything to keep their fantastic evolution faith alive. It is part of paradigm paralysis in which evolutionary pseudoscience is placed above true science and observable reality. An evolutionist wouldn't be an evolutionist if he wouldn't come up with yet another theory in order to explain away the problems. So not surprisingly there is again a call for yet a new evolutionary synthesis...
Extended evolutionary synthesis
The extended evolutionary synthesis is a set of extensions of the earlier modern synthesis of evolutionary biology that took place between 1918 and 1942. The extended evolutionary synthesis was called for in the 1950s by C. H. Waddington, argued for on the basis of punctuated equilibrium by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge in the 1980s, and relaunched in 2007 by Massimo Pigliucci. The extended evolutionary synthesis revisits the relative importance of different factors at play, examining several assumptions of the earlier synthesis, and augmenting it with additional causative factors.
Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies. Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution. Some of us first met to discuss these advances six years ago. In the time since, as members of an interdisciplinary team, we have worked intensively to develop a broader framework, termed the extended evolutionary synthesis1 (EES), and to flesh out its structure, assumptions and predictions. In essence, this synthesis maintains that important drivers of evolution, ones that cannot be reduced to genes, must be woven into the very fabric of evolutionary theory.

The extended evolutionary synthesis, also called Evo-Devo, first of all confirms that neo-Darwinism is insufficient for explaining the complexity of life. This is of course what many critics of evolution theory pointed out long before. But of course they were heavily suppressed or censored by the world of mainstream science and therefore most people don't know much of the problems with evolution theory. Evolutionists are inventing more and more evolutionary theories to explain away the many problems. A good example is punctuated equilibrium which contradicts phyletic gradualism. This typifies evolution theory. The division within the world of evolution shows that macroevolution is far from explained and that the only thing that certainly evolves with time is evolution theory itself.