Darwinists? and other names for "evos"

Your descriptions of both "Darwinism" and "Punc Eeek" are wrong.Firstly Darwin himself did not describe to the absolute reliance on phyletic gradualism that Gould and Eldredge wrongly attributed to him.Secondly phyletic gradualism certainly is expected to be visible in the fossil record where it has occurred.Thirdly punctuated equilibria is also expected to be visible in the fossil record where we have a detailed record of the area where the evolutionary change was centred (it isn't common but it isn't unknwon either).

Punctuated Equilibria was proposed partly because the fossil record did not conform to the extreme gradualism proposed by paleontologists. However it was also proposed to apply current evolutionary theory to the fossil record. It was nothing surprising to scientists working outsied paleontology - see Richard Dawkins comments in The Blind Watchmaker for example.

quote:

---

The 'gaps', far from being annoying imperfections or awkward embarrassments, turn out to be what we should positively expect, if we take seriously our orthodox neo-Darwinian theory od speciation/

---

Moreover Gould himself stated:

quote:

---

We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil recordgeologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond. It represents much less than 1 per cent of the average life-span for a fossil invertebrate speciesmore than ten million years.

---

and

quote:

---

Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

---

Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real moneyYour ideas about punctuated equilibria are simply wrong - as could easily be discovered by reading the popular literature on the subject. And that is why you should not rely on creationist sources.

I am afraid your illogical claims are off topic. Please start a new thread if you wish to discuss them.