IT should be obvious to most people that punctuated equilibria is NOT science. All this theory does is try and explain that ancestry should not be discernible in the fossil record (why? Because it's not in the fossil record so they have to come up with some explanation) Some scientists think punctuated equilibria and neo-Darwinism are nearly the same. That view is mistaken. The two theories are totally different. They share only their commitment to common descent. New darwinists believed in gradual evolution through phyletic lineages. they expected to see gradual intergradations and identifiable phylogeny. But the fossil record did not display either. So what do they do? They claim the fossil record is incomplete
The punctuationists are convinced the fossil record is not that incomplete and must be taken more literally. So, they invented a theory that expects neither gradual intergradations nor identifiable phlogeny.
These two theories could hardly be more different and still be common descent. They cut straight to the center of the origins controversy.
The funny thing about this is that punctuationists say their idea is testable. They feel that gradual fossil series would refute their theory. Gould said, if morphological adaptations usually accumulate with no tendency to any rapid initial setting and stabilization, then punctuated equilibrium is wrong.
Get it?
One can refute punctuated equilibria only by providing convincing evidence that evolution has occurred. What does this say? Evolutionary descent with modification has at last descended, modified, and adapted itself right out of science.
Who are these punctuated equilibria guys? not biologists but generally paleontologists - like Stephen Gould.
In short, the whole towering theoretical enterprise of punctuated equilibria was driven by problems with the fossil record. It does not predict genetics or any other well-understood biological process. It simply constructs a theory to adapt evolutionary theory in explaining the observed fossil record.
What's really funny is that punctuated equilibria is what creationists have always said. So evolutionists are trying to steal the creationists prediction
Weinbert, an evolutionists even said "So the creationist prediction of systematic gaps in the fossil record has no value in validating the creationist model, since evolution theory makes precisely the same prediction."
But .........hmmmmmmm........who knew this even before information was accumulated about the fossil record? The fossil record broke Darwin's heart and it's still a problem for for the evolutionary illusionists today.
Excellent!
Bravo!
Take a bow!
Why should anyone be interested in your attempt to define punctuated equilibrium into something which it isn't, a rejection of evolution? Gould had utter contempt for people like you, who twisted his work and his words.