Now there are signs that geologists and biologists are becoming uncomfortable with their Lyellian glasses. Some are daring to give expression to their malaise, pointing to blind spots and distortions in the overly restrictive view of nature they have inherited from Lyell. In the field of sedimentary geology, for example, the concept of catastrophism has been resurrected, the dust of 100 years of neglect brushed off, and catastrophic explanations offered for many (but not all) features of the earth's crust. The most notable advocate of "neocatastrophism" in geology is Derek Ager. He vividly captures the new catastrophic point of view in geology in these words: "The history of any one part of the earth, like the life of a soldier, consists of long periods of boredom and short periods of terror" (3).So it should not be surprising that a similar view of reality is now emerging in paleontology. The paleontological challenge to Darwinian uniformitarianism is also a return to a more catastrophic view of reality. Any revival of catastrophic views of nature is naturally of keen interest to creationists, whose reaction to the recent developments could justifiably be — "At last!"
One of the best articles for understanding the new developments in paleontology is found in a lively and stimulating professional journal called Paleobiology. The article is entitled "Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered," and is written by Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University and Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History. Here, Gould and Eldredge vigorously restate their theory, defend it against its critics, and summarize the status of the debate it has inspired.
Have Gould and Eldredge really accepted the creationist critique? Probably not consciously, but listen to the assertions they make about the fossil record and evolution:
1. Paleontologists have dealt with the fossil record in a seriously biased manner. ("Paleontologists have worn blinders that permit them to accumulate cases in one category only: they have sought evidence of slow, steady and gradual change.... other classes of information were explained away or simply ignored....") (p.116).
2. Stability is more fundamental than change. ("... most species ... either do not change in any appreciable way, or else they fluctuate mildly in morphology, with no apparent direction.") (p. 115).
3. The gaps in the fossil record are real and will not go away with more collecting. ("The punctuations that mark the fossil record do not smooth out as stratigraphic resolution improves.") (p. 118).
4. The processes that produce small-scale changes in living organisms are inadequate to explain the origin of the tremendous variety of living forms. ("Genetic substitution within populations cannot be simply extrapolated to encompass all events in the history of life.") (p. 139).
5. Rates of change are far too slow to account for macroevolution. ("The characteristic rates of supposed gradualistic events ... are too slow to account ... for adaptive radiations and the origin of new morphological designs.") (p. 133).
All of these points have been raised by creationists, though, sad to say, rarely as cogently or with comparable sophistication. [I'm insulted!]
Although these new developments will be (and should be) viewed by creationists as a sort of vindication, it is quite unlikely that creationist views will now achieve greater acceptance in paleontology. After all, the title of Gould and Eldredge's article is not: "Punctuated Equilibria: Evolution Reconsidered!"
The third argument is more direct: transitions are often found in the fossil record. Preserved transitions are not common—and should not be, according to our understanding of evolution (see next section) but they are not entirely wanting, as creationists often claim. The lower jaw of reptiles contains several bones, that of mammals only one. The non-mammalian jawbones are reduced, step by step, in mammalian ancestors until they become tiny nubbins located at the back of the jaw. The "hammer" and "anvil" bones of the mammalian ear are descendants of these nubbins. How could such a transition be accomplished? the creationists ask. Surely a bone is either entirely in the jaw or in the ear. Yet paleontologists have discovered two transitional lineages of therapsids (the so-called mammal-like reptiles) with a double jaw joint—one composed of the old quadrate and articular bones (soon to become the hammer and anvil), the other of the squamosal and dentary bones (as in modern mammals). For that matter, what better transitional form could we expect to find than the oldest human, Australopithecus afarensis, with its apelike palate, its human upright stance, and a cranial capacity larger than any ape’s of the same body size but a full 1,000 cubic centimeters below ours? If God made each of the half-dozen human species discovered in ancient rocks, why did he create in an unbroken temporal sequence of progressively more modern features—increasing cranial capacity, reduced face and teeth, larder body size? Did he create to mimic evolution and test our faith thereby?Evolution as Fact and Theory, by Stephen J. Gould.
I've linked you Don Lindsay's Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium how many times now, and yet you cling to the Duane Gish version. How is this excusable?