Evolution is the stand-on ground of all biological sciences. Evolution stems its knowledge from comparative anatomy, palaeontology, Archaeology, ecology and most recently and importantly, genetics and genomics. Scientists cannot 'think' much about evolution as you seem to suggest as though they have an opinion of it.
Scientists do not have an opinion on gravity or electronics or photosynthesis for example, as though they were supposed to weigh up the moral rights and wrongs of such things.
Scientists may be excited by breakthroughs of course. The unravelling of DNA structure of the emerging of natural selection as a means for species-change, or the structure of atoms revealed through encounters with gold foil, or the discovery that gene traits are expressed in pairs called alleles, or the discovery that spacetime might end, are all thrilling when stumbled upon as new insight into the world and can thus be cherished that we know a little more, but to have an opinion is not what science is all about. Thus scientists do not 'think about' science, nor of evolution. Science is about the dispassionate description of the world, however ghastly or beautiful that description may turn out to be.
The world is an unconscious babbling of atoms and their subatomic mass-energy constituents all dancing on space-time. Scientists dispassionately listen and record and try to understand the babble and try to watch the dance. They describe the babble and the dance. They do not prescribe their moral values fabricated by their own species to it. They describe the dances and leapings on the stage of space-time whether or not they think they are good are bad. Of course the unconscous, never-conscious Brownian motion leapings of atoms, whether causing embryo development or fatal cancer cannot be bad at all, or else the Universe may not even be here. But members of the public with no knowledge of science try to paste their moral values and opinions on the Universe.
Relatively educated people tend to agree there is credence in the Theory of Evolution, while less educated people often dismiss the Theory of Evolution on religious grounds. This is a pasting of one's own (maybe indoctrinated) moral values on the Universe. Some may like to prescribe these notions to the behaviour of the Universe itself. Some refuse to see credence in the Theory of Evolution or the ungodguided development of the world by the big bang or abiogenesis from a religious viewpoint. These people have no knowledge of science at all. Science is an honest description of the world which may yield alarming results.
The notion that apes and humans developed ungodguided and that there is no benevolent dominance hanging over the heads of the peoples, that all is in the vacant emptiness of the lonely Universe among randomly prancing atoms that have no knowledge of human-indoctrinated morality and can randomly prance to instigate the stirrings of embryonic life or randomly cease life carcinogenically, is a very frightening notion to some. Thus the notions of ungodguidedness or randomness in the Universe is often frowned upon and people develop opinions, and perhaps prescriptions on the truths uncovered about the Universe. Particularly, the apparent randomness, the waiting for a genetic mutation in the Theory of Evolution is frowned upon by the public. In fact Evolution is under unnecessary attack, mainly by religious objectors. Science is not a place to have opinions of the Universe, whether evolution or big bangs or DNA. Morality is a place for opinions.
A disinterested scientific picture of the Universe need not be prescribed upon. When we settle into our societies we can have the morality-opinions and the thinking-about things, but they will be based around science whose objective description need not be quibbled with. But science still seems to leave us in a vacant, random Universe full of horrible little random atoms that one cannot trust from one moment to the next. In the lonely, empty Universe, one can at least, on the curtain of space-time, be comforted by the presence of these atoms and the delicious facts delineated and expiscated by science, all swirling around one like little rainbows. You need not have opinions, or pity morality, when at least you know what the Universe is about, described by the disinterest of science.
Intermediate species forms, yes. A the taxa level, no. Still, not all taxa evidence is supportive of punctuation and stasis. Punctuated equilibrium is only one explanation of how evolution occurs in some species, not all species. The little shellies evidence gradualist processes very well.
Gradualism is the theory that evolution occurs slowly and consistently along periods of time. On the other hand, punctuated equilibrium is the theory that evolution does not occurs for long periods of time and then suddenly evolves rapidly in a small short period of time.
Lava will cool quickly compared to underground magma.
Darwin's classic theory of evolution assumed that evolution is a slow, contunuous process, by which new species evolve and emerge. This is referred to at times as "organic evolution" and the "synthetic theory of evolution", or just the Darwinian theory of evolution. A newer theory, proposed originally by Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould is known as "punctuated equilibria", a model in which the evloution of new species occurs only periodically, in relatively rapid spurts. See "Time Frames the Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibraia, Simon & Schuster, 1985"AnswerThe slow, constant process has also been called "gradualism."
That is called "Gradualism" (the alternate being "Punctuated Equilibrium").
Slowly.
The hypothesis that proposes evolution occurs slowly but steadily is known as gradualism. It suggests that species evolve through gradual changes over long periods of time. This contrasts with punctuated equilibrium, which suggests that evolution occurs in short bursts of rapid change followed by long periods of stability.
The theory of punctuated equilibrium suggests that evolution occurs rapidly in short bursts followed by long periods of stability. This contrasts with gradualism, which proposes that evolution happens slowly and steadily over time. Punctuated equilibrium is supported by the fossil record, where evidence of rapid changes in species can be observed.
When evolution occurs at a slow steady pace, the rate is defined as gradualism. This theory suggests that species evolve slowly over time through accumulating small changes.
Evolution through natural selection occurs slowly over millions of years. It has been hypothesized that evolution is the result of positive mutations that occur in a community of organisms that help them survive better. Evolution is essentially descent with modification.
The gradualism model of evolution suggests that evolution occurs slowly and continuously over long periods of time through accumulation of small, incremental changes. In contrast, the punctuated equilibrium model proposes that evolution occurs in rapid bursts of change followed by long periods of stasis, with new species appearing suddenly in the fossil record.
A model of evolution showing slow change is gradualism. It proposes that evolution occurs slowly and steadily over time, with species gradually diverging from common ancestors through small, incremental changes. This contrasts with punctuated equilibrium, which suggests that evolution occurs in relatively rapid bursts of change separated by long periods of stability.
This is called gradualism, which involves evolutionary changes happening gradually over time, without abrupt shifts or sudden leaps in development. It contrasts with punctuated equilibrium, where evolution occurs in rapid bursts separated by long periods of stability.
slowly
slowly
slowly
Evolution can occur slowly over long periods of time, as changes accumulate in a population's genetic makeup. However, some evolutionary changes can also happen relatively quickly in response to environmental pressures or other factors, such as in the case of adaptive radiation or rapid genetic mutations.