OK dilute micro. If we are going talk about "darwinism" can we agree on what "darwinism" is.
Here's Mayr's definition:
1) Evolution as such. This is the theory that the world is not constant or recently created nor perpetually cycling, but rather is steadily changing, and that organisms are transformed in time.
2) Common descent. This is the theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor, and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.
3) Multiplication of species. This theory explains the origin of the enormous organic diversity. It postulates that species multiply, either by splitting into daughter species or by "budding", that is, by the establishment of geographically isloated founder populations that evolve into new species.
4) Gradualism. According to this theory, evolutionary change takes place through the gradual change of populations and not by the sudden (saltational) production of new individuals that represent a new type.
5) Natural selection. According to this theory, evolutionary change comes about throught the abundant production of genetic variation in every generation. The relatively few individuals who survive, owing to a particularly well-adapted combination of inheritable characters, give rise to the next generation.
Of course not all "darwinists" have agreed with all five components of Darwin's theory. Huxley, for example, would have rejected 4). Indeed it is 4) which looks as if contradicts the theory of punctuated equilibria. But this is not so because gradualism is contrasted with saltation, not punctuation. Both Gould and Eldredge have consistently denied that pe is saltationist.
Now perhaps you can use this theory to derive a theory about what the fossil record should be. But it is far from obvious how you would do this. If you have such a derivation then let's see it. Let's see what assumptions you need to make in order to make such a derivation.
