Punctuated equilibrium is basically an attempt to down-play the lack of evidence in the fossils for phylogeny. It derives from a more "literal" reading of the fossil record.
So is punctuated equilibrium testable? Gould says that a series of fossils showing gradual development of an adaptation would refute punctuated equilibrium. This is a "no lose" situation that Gould has created here: if the fossils show systematic gaps, then the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution is "proven", but if the fossils show gradualism, then the standard neo-Darwinian model of evolution is proven. In other words, evolution itself is no longer falsifiable! Punctuated equilibrium and neo-Darwinism are both now part of the evolutionists' grab-bag of conflicting theories as Gould now views punctuated equilibrium as an addition to evolutionary theory rather than an alternative.
In short: How to best explain away the gaps in the fossil record, without throwing doubt on the basic premise of evolution? The answer: "punctuated equilibrium." The whole exercise is intellectually dishonest, because it creates a loophole for a theory (evolution) in crisis without seriously questioning or testing the theory itself.
When a child is born it is a miracle. In my view it doesn’t make it any less a miracle because we know something about the mechanics that allowed the child to be born. Is God eliminated because we know about DNA?
Is God less of a God because He used a gradual process of evolution rather than waving a magic wand and suddenly bringing man from nothingness?