Because PE better fits the fossil record. Of that I have no doubt. To many, Darwin's claim of what is essentially a continuum was not a "little thing". Gould and Eldredge obviously didn't think so.
I don't like dishonest science. If Gould and Eldredge were correct, then say so. Stop looking over your shoulders at what the "fundies" may think. In the long run it's a winner for science.
The astronomers did a better job handling the transition from the "Steady State" theory to the "Big Bang Theory" despite its Biblical implications, and the fundies ran wild with it. But so what?
Science must forge ahead with the scientific method regardless.
As the saying goes "damn the torpedos and full speed ahead".
I don't like dishonest science. If Gould and Eldredge were correct, then say so. Stop looking over your shoulders at what the "fundies" may think. In the long run it's a winner for science.
I don't like dishonest science, or anything else dishonest, for that matter.
Let's take a look at this. Here is a good on-line resource [excerpted; follow the link for the rest]:
All you need to know about Punctuated Equilibrium (almost) Much confusion has surrounded the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) as proposed by Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould in 1972. This essay addresses a few of the erroneous views held by many creationists and even some evolutionary biologists concerning PE. There are several main points I wish to make:
Common misconceptions concerning the hypothesis
of Punctuated EquilibriumCopyright © 2001-2003 by Douglas Theobald. Source.
- There are two common uses of "gradualism," one of which is more traditional and correct, the other of which is equivalent to Eldredge and Gould's "phyletic gradualism."
- Darwin was not a "phyletic gradualist," contrary to the claims of Eldredge and Gould.
- PE is not anti-Darwinian; in fact, the scientific basis and conclusions of PE originated with Charles Darwin.
- PE does not require any unique explanatory mechanism (e.g. macromutation or saltation).
- Eldredge and Gould's PE is founded on positive evidence, and does not "explain away" negative evidence (e.g. a purported lack of transitional fossils).
I will not attempt to give an overview of PE here. For background concerning the details of the PE hypothesis I refer you to the first two major PE papers (Eldredge and Gould 1972; Gould and Eldredge 1977) and to Wesley Elsberry's online PE FAQ.
This confirms my memory that Darwin allowed for PE in his original theory.
OK, the shoe is on the other foot. Damnation of Darwin for missing PE is incorrect. He was wise enough to know what he didn't know, and his overall theory has managed to survive remarkably intact for 150 years.
I still think that any evaluation of evolutionary theory should not waste time demonizing Darwin, but should focus on modern practitioners, such as Johanson and White, and the geneticists and radiometric specialists. There is a lot going on out there, but Darwin has not published in over a century. He is clearly behind the times.