Show one complete lineage in evolution

What error? Both phyletic gradualists and those that subscribe to the idea of punctuated equilibrium believe in variable rate change. The only difference is that phyletic gradualists believe that speciation events occur over long periods of geologic time, whereas those that subscribe to punctuated equilibrium believe they occur over short periods of geologic time. Gould over-hyped the punctuated equilibrium theory. It was a restatement of what Darwin had said. What Gould did was caricature the phyletic gradualists as not subscribing to the notion of variable rate change. This was not the case. Phyletic gradualists do believe in variable rate change--where they differ from those who accept punctuated equilibrium is that they believe that speciation events occur over long periods of geologic time. This does not imply the rate of change is not varied. This is why punctuated equilibrium seemed revolutionary. I’m going to have to disagree with you here. Based on my understanding the reason it had to be restated was because gradualism and a steady rate of change had become linked, not because scientists actually subscribed to the notion of a lack of variable rate change. I was under the impression that variable rate change had always been accepted. The problem was the inability to reconcile the connotation of the word gradualism with variable rate change. Use of the word gradualism was believed to imply a steady rate. Nowhere did Darwin imply this however. The Darwin quotation that you provided demonstrates this.

---

"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."
--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

Hahah, well, sure, if you assume that Lamarck was right.

Ah, thanks for the correction, but would you mind providing me with a link discussing these calculations and how a steady rate is a base assumption for them?

---

"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."
--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

Nice. This is what I was asking about. I wasn't aware that there was an "institutionalized mindset." I thought that, despite the use of a steady rate in calculations, everyone accepted a variable rate--even the phyletic gradualists.It's like when classical mechanics is used as opposed to relativistic physics because of convenience--i.e. the mathematics isn't nightmarish. The discrepancy between the answer obtained via classical mechanics and the one given by relativistic physics is so small for all practical purposes, it makes more sense to use the easier method. But does this necessarily mean that those using it accept the notion of absolute time? No, of course not. Does using F = ma warrant a restatement of relativistic physics? I'm guessing, "no." Similarly, I thought that geneticists used a steady rate in their calculations out of convenience, not because they didn't accept that a variable rate actually existed.But, of course, the existence of this "institutionalized mindset" lays waste to my crass assumptions. Ah well. Yep, my former biology teacher remembers being surprised that it was being presented as something new, too.

---

"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."
--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker

What is this about scientists "dividing into camps" and having "competing theories?" Whatever happened to the Evilutionist Conspiracy (TM)? They're not in collusion anymore? How sad. Indeed.

---

"Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially nonrandom."
--Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker