Phyletic Gradualism or Punctated Equilibrium?

Question

Which do you believe and why?

Answer 1

1. They are not a dichotomy; they both have explanatory power in differing spheres. It is posited that some organisms were subject to the first and some subject to the second. The fossil record supports both; one by lack of intermediates and one by a whole range of intermediates. Gould and Eldridge were gradualist's, just as Darwin meant gradualism. Darwin referred to things such as eyes, when he spoke of gradualism. Phyletic gradualism is a later concept, but as I said, well supported ( hominid evolution, for one ).
2. What one believes is of no matter, as the truth does not care about belief. Punctuated equilibrium can be easily incorporated in to standard Darwinian thought; despite what some may think. ( Read Dawkins on this ) Go here.

http://www.talkorigins.org

Answer 2

Neither, and how can the fossil record support both? The lack of intermediate and transitional's leaves Darwin's gradualism completely lacking. Even the Hominid chain of intermediates is disputed by science. Even the famous Lucy found by Leaky is considered by many to be nothing more than an early and now extinct primate

Answer 3

Personally, I think that it is a false dichotomy. I believe that what Gould and others did was to place more emphasis on allopatric speciation than other had done in the neodarwinian sythesis.

I think that both occur, that both are important in evolution.

Answer 4

Punctuated Equilibrium, as there is a dearth of intermediate forms in the fossil record.