I would have put this all into one post if I'd known how quickly I get results.

Harun Yayah's "wrong" statement:
Quote
In order to explain these two facts within the theory of evolution, Gould and Eldredge proposed that living species came about not through a series of small changes, as Darwin had maintained, but by sudden, large ones.
Gould himself:
Quote
As a Darwinian, I wish to defend Goldschmidt's postulate that macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated, and that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages.
Now unless 'major' is evodefined as exclusive of 'large'; or 'rapidly' is evodefined as exclusive of 'sudden', HY is RIGHT ON THE MONEY.

It is Redefinin' RAZD, talkdeceptions, the evoflunky who edited the wiki, and probably a few others who are commiting the error. How common it is, I can't say.

But as long as I'm started, I might as well make this more than a short supplement.

RAZD:(plus bold)
Quote
So the above quote is from one of the early papers on punkeek. It is also clear from the rest of the wiki article that large scale change is not involved. Speciation is not large scale change, and that is the most that punkeek claims. We in fact see speciation events like this. We also (see foraminifera) see speciation events without this mechanism of small population isolates.
Wesley R. Elsberry at talkdeceptions, in part #6, Common errors in discussion of PE
Quote
PE is essentially and exclusively directed to questions at the level of speciation and processes affecting species. The basis of PE is the neontological theory of peripatric speciation. The criteria by which "punctuations" are recognized by Gould and Eldredge involve temporal issues and geographic issues. PE is not expected to be as useful at lower or higher levels of change.
So who's right, RAZD or Elsberry?

But then Elsberry disagrees with me:
Quote
PE is by no means either synonymous with "saltationism", nor did Gould's essay on Richard Goldschmidt "link" PE with Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" conjecture. Gould wrote an article that has caused much confusion. "Return of the hopeful monsters" sought to point out that a hatchet job had been done on some of the concepts that Richard Goldschmidt had formulated. The discussion of systemic mutations as mutations which affect rate or timing of development has caused many people to assume that Gould was somehow linking PE to this concept. A close reading of the article shows this to not be the case.
He should have said "a closed-eye reading". There's no evocode I could find embedded in the text which matches Elsberry's assertion, and I note that he does not quote anything at all to back up his misinterpretation.

But I have to say this article by Gould makes half good reading. But recall that RAZD cites Dawkins' analysis of Gould, if you will. Now check this out, before you consider Dawkins an authority on Gould. The Marxist Monster fires an entertaining return volley at both Dawkins and Dennett.

And it provides ample backup, lest anyone wish to take the lazy approach & trust talkdeceptions to interpret Gould:
Quote
I wrote in 1982c (p. 88): "Punctuated equilibrium is not a theory of macromutation…it is not a theory of any genetic process…It is a theory about larger-scale patterns-the geometry of speciation in geological time. As with ecologically rapid modes of speciation, punctuated equilibrium welcomes macromutation as a source for the initiation of species: the faster the better. But punctuated equilibrium clearly does not require or imply macromutation, since it was formulated as the expected geological consequence of Mayrian allopatry."
Gould even accuses his evoopposition of misquoting him. Evolit doesn't get much better!
Quote
once again, the claim rests upon a canonical misquotation and exposes the apparent unwillingness or inability of our unscientific critics to read a clear text with care.

And because there's no such thing as too much back-up
Quote
Eldredge and Gould have proposed an equally diverse array of explanations for rapid "punctuated" evolution. It was initially ascribed to the breakdown of developmental constraints in small, speciating populations (a non-Darwinian process) (1) and later to the occurrence of single mutations with large effects (including homeotic mutations) or to chromosome rearrangements affecting gene expression

*** Bonus! Niles Eldridge says in this pdf:
Quote
We find this example and other such case studies compelling evidence that morphological stasis is a common pattern in the fossil record, which thus requires an examination of how evolutionary and ecological
processes can account for it.
So a professional evolutionist does not think stasis is something which can be blown off...

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson