...But back to Gould, he was insisting on having his cake while eating it, in other words, he said what he had to to get rid of the evoloser yoke which was stifling palaeontology, and then cursed the creationists for quoting that material.
That's a double game and a dishonest one."
First, I don't accept any of your name-calling slanders against Gould as valid.
Gould was obviously bitter at the way Creationists had misconstrued his words.
Here is the link to my previous quote of Gould.
And here to Gould's entire article.
Second, punctuated equilibrium is simple common sense, regardless of your personal attacks on Gould:
Whenever a species has perfectly adapted to its environment then nearly every mutation which actually effects it must necessarily be negative, and so natural selection will weed it out.
And as long as a species interbreeds among all its members, then it can remain basically unchanged for many, many generations.
Only when a sub-group is isolated in a changed environment, and forced to either adapt or die out, can evolution (descent with modifications and natural selection) have major effects over relatively shorter time periods.
Yes, a well-adapted large population can change over time, more or less randomly, in what's called "genetic drift":
So, how much of evolution is driven by
But considered logically, wouldn't a separated sub-species suffering natural selections from a changing environment be most likely to produce more changes over the shortest time periods?
Gould was PRETENDING to be bitter at the way creationists were quoting him, and they were quoting him correctly. In real life, there is a terribly easy way to avoid being quoted as having said something: