[js1138]

I am not misrepresenting gradualism or Darwin's view or the fossil record. When you imply, however, that saltation is gradualism you are most certainly misrepresenting it.

Darwin considered all the possible implications of the fossil record, so when you omit this fact, you misrepresent his position. The fact that his final position -- made without benefit of the subsequent 150 years of evidence -- was wrong, is no more damning than Copernicus' inclusion of epicycles in the orbits of planets. Science progresses.

Saltation happens in plants. That is a fact. Nearly everything we eat is the result of a polyploidy event in recent history. Nearly everything we eat is either a grain that cannot procreate without cultivation, or an animal that feeds on these grains. It is not inconsistent with gradualism; neither is it the same thing as gradualism.

In general, every individual is the same species as its parents, with variations. Plants have modes of evolution that are extremely rare in animals.

[Tribune7]

Darwin considered all the possible implications of the fossil record, so when you omit this fact, you misrepresent his position.

He considered all the possible implications and came to the wrong conclusion and pointing that out in defense of someone else is not a misrepresentation.

Or, if you will, Darwin understood that the fossil record did not back his view but had faith that it would eventually.

Regardless, he was a gradualist and the fossil record does not back up gradualism.