1022 THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
falsely read as a saltationist doctrine proclaiming the overthrow of the Modern
Synthesis, if not of Darwinism itself, received a hefty dose of anathematization in
tones usually reserved for demonizing religious heterodoxies.
The third phase then began in the mid-1980's, as documented in Sections III-V
of this chapter, and has continued ever since. The evidence became too great, and we
withstood all ideological attacks without sustaining appreciable damage. Punctuated
equilibrium now seemed both coherent in argument, and supported by a sufficient
number of empirical studies to become a recognized evolutionary phenomenon—
though at a relative frequency as yet undetermined. Such a situation must cause
critics to remember the old cliche: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em (but don't grant 'em
too much credit for innovation or originality). Move instead to phase three of
Agassiz's continuum— "sure it's true, but we always knew this; punctuated
equilibrium amounts to no more than a little wrinkle on the skin of neo-Darwinism."
As an initiating episode of the third phase, Darwinian biologists began to
construct models that rendered punctuational patterns (though not always
cladogenetic events of true punctuated equilibrium) by standard formulae of
population genetics under certain reasonable assumptions and conditions. We have
always welcomed these formulations, for we never sought the radical content of
punctuated equilibrium in novel microevolutionary processes, as I have emphasized
throughout this chapter—and any demonstrated mechanism for punctuational patterns
evokes both our interest and satisfaction. The first two studies in this genre appeared
in 1985—Newman, Cohen and Kipnis (1985) and Lande (1985). In 1986, Roger
Lewin wrote a "news and views" commentary for Science entitled: "Punctuated
equilibrium is now old hat." He ended with a gratifying comment by Joel Cohen: "In
terms of the tenor of the debate, which at times has been strident, the new results will
bring the various parties closer together. Cohen readily concedes that population
geneticists very probably would not have applied their mathematical tools to the issue
in this way had there not been such a big fuss stirred up by the paleontologists'
claims. 'They deserve credit for that,' he says."
So I guess we won by Agassiz's scenario, even if personal motivations of an
ungenerous nature lead our severest critics to belittle our achievement as true after
all, but trivial from the outset. But why then did they ever make such a fuss?
A CODA ON THE KINDNESS AND GENEROSITY OF MOST COLLEAGUES.
This section, devoted to unscientific critiques by professional colleagues, centers on
unhappy themes of jealousy, pettiness and meanness of spirit. But I do not wish to
leave the impression that these unpleasantnesses have dominated the totality of
discussion about punctuated equilibrium. Quite to the contrary, in fact—and I have
already discussed the numerous tough, spirited, helpful and scientific critiques of
punctuated equilibrium in sections III-V of this chapter. Intense and useful debate has
predominated throughout the history of punctuated equilibrium. Most of our
colleagues have unstintingly followed the norms and ideals of scientific discussion,
and we have primarily