Show me where
I've already done that, several times. The ONLY thing I was talking about in post 203 of the other thread was albedo and ir flux data and you specifically claimed to have refuted that a year prior.
Not true.
Please read this post, a certifiable copy of one posted a year earlier.
Actually, punctuated equilibrium, IMHO, has a lot in common with another favorite whipping boy found in the talk.origins types: Immanuel Velikovsky's theories of catastrophism.You clearly claim your albedo data as proof of a sweeping, silly, and impossible theory.Velikovsky had more going for him than Gould or Eldredge do.
As I see it, it's more than most people could do to try to completely run to ground more than a handful of the lines of evidences involved in the Velikovsky controversies and see where they lead, particularly for people who still have to work for a living and have limited resources for hobbies.
Nonetheless, I have made the effort to do that in a few cases and, in every instance in which I have, the raw evidence unequivocably supports Velikovsky and damns Sagan and pretty much all of Velikovsky's later-day critics.
One such case is the question of thermal balance on Venus and the various infrared flux meters andmeasurements of Albedo . . . [diving never to return into the albedo of Venus].
Your charge is baseless, a distraction. I misrepresented nothing, not a year ago, not a week ago, and not today.