[Stone Mountain]

No, when the fossil evidence started eroding his beloved theory of evolution, he MADE UP an explanation for the gaps in the fossil record.

Sure. That's what scientists do. They make up explanations (we call them theories) about the way things are, and determine if the evidence out there supports the theory or not.

[exmarine]

Sure. That's what scientists do. They make up explanations (we call them theories) about the way things are, and determine if the evidence out there supports the theory or not.

Unfortunately, I have never seen a viable explanation as to how these "hopeful monsters" could emerge. It is hard to imagine hundreds of simultaneous beneficial mutations occurring at the same time. But a deeper question is: Where would the information from the mutations come from? Just how is new information added to the genome that would allow such wildly progressive evolution as needed in p.e.?

[My2Cents]

...and when the evidence doesn't prove the theory (or hypothesis), either the hypothesis is thrown away or is modified. But even at that, the modified theory must still stand the test of the evidence. That's the scientific method. How has evolution (or punctuated equilibrium, for that matter) stood up to the evidence? It can't, because it cannot be observed and cannot be replicated in a lab.