[jennyp]

If you can't find any evidence, you will need to either modify or discard your hypothesis.

Or explain why the evidence isn't there, which is kind of what punctuated equilibrium is all about.

You know, if there was no evidence of species evolving into another species, then you'd have a point. But Punk eek describes a pattern that should be found in the fossils whenever you find enough of them, and this pattern has been observed, in several instances. So punk eek as a process of speciation has been verified to hold true in at least some cases.

[Heartlander]

In some ways, punctuated equilibrium is more of an excuse for lack of supporting data, rather than actual evidence for what happened. The above mentioned article in the journal Science (267:1421-1422) somewhat supports this idea by saying that punctuated equilibrium is a topic about which "there are a lot of hypotheses and not many facts." This is a little like a prosecuting attorney saying: "We have no evidence that this person committed this crime, but I can give reasons why the evidence disappeared. Now, find this person guilty." However, the case for punctuated equilibrium is worse than that. There are theoretical reasons why it shouldn't work. Some of these are outlined in an article in Nature (394:329) called "Rarity as Double Jeopardy." The basic idea is that the smaller the population, the greater the chance of extinction. One reason is the amount of inbreeding that occurs (Science 280:35).