Is this the first time anyone ever explained punctuated equilibria to you? Of course it's "differentiation by small mutation." All scientific theories of evolution involve "differentiation by small mutation"; punk-eek is not all that different from classical darwinism in that respect.
OK. There are two logical possibilities. Evolution by small mutation or large mutation. The only problem with the former theory is the lack of evidence in the fossil record. The only problem with the latter theory is that it's absurd.
Here'a an exerpt from "Talk Origins" regarding punk eek:
The theory of Punctuated Equilibria provides paleontologists with an explanation for the patterns which they find in the fossil record. This pattern includes the characteristically abrupt appearance of new species, the relative stability of morphology in widespread species, the distribution of transitional fossils when those are found, the apparent differences in morphology between ancestral and daughter species, and the pattern of extinction of species.[All of this is evidence of intelligent design, yet Gould and Eldridge stand the evidence on its head]
PE relies upon the insights of study of modern species for its principles. These studies indicate the importance of consideration of geography and interspecies interactions upon predictions of the distribution and abundance of transitional specimens. While Eldredge and Gould acknowledge that geological processes contribute to the "gappiness" of the fossil record, [more evidence against evolutionary theory inverted] they also assert that PE is by far the more important consideration in that regard. [assert away fellas. That's all you got.]
2. The Problem of Paleospecies
Paleontologists have to recognize species from their fossil remains. The problem of "What is a paleospecies?" [Indeed, if everything's in transition. But then, nothing's a problem for these guys] led Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould to propose the theory of punctuated equilibria [no lack of imagination here]. The term "paleospecies" makes explicit the distinction between the classification of species from fossil remains and the process of recognizing species in modern populations. This problem involves geology, taphonomy, taxonomy, and -- though often ignored -- geography [and don't forget good ol' slight of hand].
Mayr's Biological Species Concept uses the criterion of reproductive isolation to distinguish species in modern populations. Paleontologists who pursue taxonomic endeavors (which includes most of them) have to classify their finds generally based upon morphological features. The rareness of preservation of tissues containing DNA, or even of soft tissues, limits the range of diagnostic characters which may be utilized. The paleontologist has no access to such information. (Whether modern biologists really do have access to that information is a matter of some little debate in the literature.)
The fossil record is incomplete. [Or non-existent concerning "transitional forms"] This incompleteness has many contributing factors. Geological processes may cause to confusion or error, as sedimentary deposition rates may vary, erosion may erase some strata, compression may turn possible fossils into unrecognizable junk, and various other means by which the local fossil record can be turned into the equivalent of a partially burned book, which is then unbound, pages perhaps shuffled, and from which a few pages are retrieved. Beyond geology, there remains taphonomy -- the study of how organisms come to be preserved as fossils. Here, there are further issues to be addressed. Hard parts of organisms fossilize preferentially. The conditions under which even those parts may become fossilized are fairly specialized. All this results in a heavily skewed distribution of even what parts of organisms become fossilized, and that affects which features of morphology are available for use in classification. The issue of geography enters into all this, as a consequence of the fact that living lineages occupy ecological niches, and those niches are bound to certain features of geography. [Riiiiiight. That explains the lack of evidence.]
Paleospecies, then, have to be recognized as species from morphology alone, where the available morphological characters are drawn from a skewed distribution, the pattern of fossilization is skewed, and the geographic correlates of fossilization are limited in extent. [Zzzzzzzz...]