Who was right about rates of change in Evolution, Gould or Dawkins?

Question

Is it punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism? If we don't know, when will the fossil record be complete enough to know?

Answer 1

This should be posted in the biology forum, not religion/spirituality.

This is one of the great unknowns of evolutionary theory, however i am leaning more towards punctuated equilibrium.

Answer 2

There is evidence for both theories in the fossil record. They are not mutually exclusive. Phyletic gradualism can be occasionally speeded by sudden changes in environment, creating temporary bursts that would look like punctuated equilibrium.

Life is in a constant state of change, to suggest that things just completely stop changing for a while would be absurd. However, the more selective pressure, the faster selection and evolution happen.

Say you have this species that lives in its little niche. One of the flowers that is its primary food happens to be getting better at storing energy, so the critters get more energy. This would favor slightly larger bodies. Slowly, over time, they get bigger. But suddenly the flower that is their primary food dies off. Many of them die 'cause they can't process other plants. Those that can are a bit sickly but manage to survive. You have a whole new generation that is much more concentrated for the genes to process other plants. They too are sickly, many die, but the few that survive tend to have stronger versions of the gene. Given a few hundred generations, they thrive on other plants. This is fairly rapid on the geologic time scale.

Answer 3

The fossil record is already there, in the ground. For our purposes, its as complete as its every going to be. The trick, though, lies in FINDING relevant fossils.

Punctuated equilibrium and phyletic gradualism do not exclude one another. Your question poses a 'False Dilemma'.