Another thing to consider is whether or not there would be enough transitional creatures to leave much in the fossil record. If they're transitional, that means they probably weren't around long, which means fewer opportunities for fossilized remains.
Chris
This ^^^ conception is one of long plateaus of stasis and short transition periods of change where the transitional critters go offstage to die.
I might buy that, were there evidence to support it. Thing is, for a change/mutation to be gradual, it must also be marginal, giving the critter only a very small advantage over his closest not-yet-evolved-as-he critter ancestors/contemporaries.
The theory as generally presented (of evolution) by most proponents is more a continuous process, which is inadequate to describe the evidence.
Actually, there are lots of fossils that show a gradual evolution as well as lots that show what you describe as "quantum" evolution, and these often exist side-by-side (trilobites being the most obvious).
Its also worth pointing out that there is, and has been for at least the last fifteen years, a lively and ongoing debate as to whether gradualism, or "punctuated equlibria" (quantum) or a combination of the two is correct when viewing ancient evolutionary processes. As far as I am aware, noone has been burnt / stoned to death / drowned as a result of these debates.
Hmm, interesting. The last time I took a good, long look at the data was a few years back. I'd be interested in a primer on this sub-topic.
Also, the intolerance is generally not between those on the "same page in the hymnal," but between outsiders (attitude-wise) who do not accept the evolution dogma as presented and the insiders who defend the theory versus all outside inquiry, no matter how valid. Some folks are just not willing to say, "I don't know for sure and the facts could support either conclusion."
Too much intellectual arrogance masquerading as rational empiricism.
