Editing Punctuated equilibrium (section)

==Criticism==
{{See also|Species#The species problem|l1=Species problem|Species complex|Push of the past}}

[[Richard Dawkins]] regards the apparent gaps represented in the fossil record as documenting migratory events rather than evolutionary events. According to Dawkins, evolution certainly occurred but "probably gradually" elsewhere.<ref>Dawkins, Richard (1996). ''[[The Blind Watchmaker]]'', p. 240.</ref> However, the punctuational equilibrium model may still be inferred from both the observation of stasis and examples of rapid and episodic speciation events documented in the fossil record.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cheetham |first1=Alan |author-link1=Alan Cheetham |last2=Jackson |first2=Jeremy |last3=Hayek |first3=Lee-Ann |author3-link= Lee-Ann C. Hayek |date=1994 |title=Quantitative genetics of bryozoan phenotypic evolution |journal=Evolution |doi=10.2307/2410098 |volume=48 |issue=2 |pages=360–375|jstor=2410098 }}</ref>

Dawkins also emphasizes that punctuated equilibrium has been "oversold by some journalists",<ref>Dawkins, Richard (1996). ''[[The Blind Watchmaker]]'', p. 250-251.</ref> but partly due to Eldredge and Gould's "later writings".<ref>[[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins, Richard]]  (1996). ''[[The Blind Watchmaker]]'', p. 241.</ref> Dawkins contends that the hypothesis "does not deserve a particularly large measure of publicity".<ref>Dawkins, Richard (1996). ''[[The Blind Watchmaker]]'', p. 250.</ref> It is a "minor gloss," an "interesting but minor wrinkle on the surface of neo-Darwinian theory," and "lies firmly within the neo-Darwinian synthesis".<ref>Dawkins, Richard (1996). ''[[The Blind Watchmaker]]'', p. 251.</ref>

In his book ''[[Darwin's Dangerous Idea]]'', philosopher [[Daniel Dennett]] is especially critical of Gould's presentation of punctuated equilibrium. Dennett argues that Gould alternated between revolutionary and conservative claims, and that each time Gould made a revolutionary statement—or appeared to do so—he was criticized, and thus retreated to a traditional neo-Darwinian position.<ref>Dennett, Daniel (1995). ''[[Darwin's Dangerous Idea]]''. New York: Simon & Schuster, pp. 282-299.</ref> Gould responded to Dennett's claims in ''[[The New York Review of Books]]'',<ref>[[Stephen Jay Gould|Gould, S. J.]] (1997). [http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1151 "Darwinian Fundamentalism"] ''The New York Review of Books'', June 12, pp. 34-37; and [https://web.archive.org/web/20161110121332/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/reviews/gould_pluralism.html "Evolution: The Pleasures of Pluralism"] ''The New York Review of Books'', June 26, pp. 47-52.</ref> and in his technical volume ''[[The Structure of Evolutionary Theory]]''.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-10-19 |title=Stephen Jay Gould, "Punctuated Equilibrium's Threefold History," 2002 |url=http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_structure.html |access-date=2022-02-16 |website= |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191019050215/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_structure.html |archive-date=19 October 2019 |url-status=dead}}</ref>

English professor Heidi Scott argues that Gould's talent for writing vivid prose, his use of metaphor, and his success in building a popular audience of nonspecialist readers altered the "climate of specialized scientific discourse" favorably in his promotion of punctuated equilibrium.<ref name=scott>{{cite journal |last=Scott |first=Heidi |date=2007 |title=Stephen Jay Gould and the Rhetoric of Evolutionary Theory |journal=Rhetoric Review |doi=10.1080/07350190709336705 |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=120–141|s2cid=144947503 }}</ref> While Gould is celebrated for the color and energy of his prose, as well as his interdisciplinary knowledge, critics such as Scott, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett have concerns that the theory has gained undeserved credence among non-scientists because of Gould's rhetorical skills.<ref name=scott /> Philosopher John Lyne and biologist Henry Howe believed punctuated equilibrium's success has much more to do with the nature of the geological record than the nature of Gould's rhetoric. They state, a "re-analysis of existing fossil data has shown, to the increasing satisfaction of the paleontological community, that Eldredge and Gould were correct in identifying periods of evolutionary stasis which are interrupted by much shorter periods of evolutionary change."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lyne |first1=John |last2=Howe |first2=Henry F. |title="Punctuated equilibria": Rhetorical dynamics of a scientific controversy |journal=Quarterly Journal of Speech |date=1986 |volume=72 |issue=2 |pages=132–147 [135] |doi=10.1080/00335638609383764}}</ref>

Evolutionary biologist [[Robert Trivers]] accused Gould of being "something of an intellectual fraud" for using claims that were "well known from the time of Darwin" (that evolution displayed "periods of long stasis interspersed with periods of rapid change") to support distinct but more "grandiose" claims regarding [[Unit of selection#Species and higher levels|species selection]], despite the "rate of species turnover [having] nothing to do with the traits within species—only with the relative frequency of species showing these traits".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Trivers |first=Robert |date=October 4, 2012 |title=Fraud in the Imputation of Fraud |url=https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-folly-fools/201210/fraud-in-the-imputation-fraud |access-date=2023-02-26 |website=Psychology Today |language=en-US}}</ref>

Some critics jokingly referred to the theory of punctuated equilibrium as "evolution by jerks",<ref>{{cite magazine |author=Turner, John |year=1984 |url=https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/538970 |title=Why we need evolution by jerks |magazine=New Scientist |volume=101 |issue=Feb. 9 |pages=34–35 }}</ref> which reportedly prompted punctuationists to describe [[phyletic gradualism]] as "evolution by creeps."<ref>[[Stephen Jay Gould|Gould, S. J.]] and Steven Rose, ed. (2007). ''The Richness of Life: The Essential Stephen Jay Gould''. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., [https://archive.org/details/richnessoflifees0000goul/page/6 p. 6.]</ref>