He recounts what he sees as the differences between
evolutionary gradualism and punctuated equilibria, though not in any depth; nor does he mention the adaptationist / neutralist controversies, instead assuming that everyone accepts the strict Darwinian model.
Not exact matches
Chad has repeatedly betrayed: his non-comprehension of what a species - level change is (i.e. the focus of PE) and that this most minor of changes does not require a wholesale reordering of a genome; his inability to grasp that
gradualism, although the clear minority in the fossil record, is present in various lineages (See Gould's various references to Foraminfera); his non-comprehension of the role of historic genetic contingency (i.e. that silent mutations can coalesce into rather dramatic novel functionality, e.g. Lenskis» E. coli); that the nodes of PE are more than sufficient for the requisite species - level
evolutionary changes (See Pod Mrcaru lizards); etc, etc..
The very fact that there are intermediate examples of anatomical features like wings only further validates the
evolutionary law of
gradualism.
Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium can co-exist — that some creatures have changed gradually and others have had long periods of stability doesn't invalidate
evolutionary theory.
The acceptance of punctuated equilibrium put to death the then prevailing thought that gradual change was the
evolutionary mechanism of speciation (Darwinian phyletic
gradualism, which had held sway for > 100 years, was utterly debunked)
The first inkling that something might be wonky with
gradualism — as Darwin's slow process of
evolutionary change is known — did not emerge from biology.