"The Panda's Thumb" -> OK, I will check the book itself out from the library. I have read many MANY summaries, and I DO belive I understand it, but it IS worth a read.
Now let me make sure I understand you correctly. When you say that the concept of gradualism is "passe", are you speaking of Gould & Eldredge's "phyletic gradualism"? Or gradualism in general? It seems as though you mean the latter.
OK, if the fossil record does not demonstrate transitional forms, then how do you explain the thousands of fossils which demonstrate animals that were on this planet that do not exist any longer?
How can you say that Darwin's premise was false? You'd have to ignore not only fossil evidence, but radiometric dating, replication in the laboratory, and the DNA evidence! Modern biology makes no sense without the principles of evolution! Are you ready to throw that all away as well?
By the way, you sure are getting rather pointed and argumentative in your posts. I'm trying to take away the assumptions and the accusations and the "loud talking", and there is less and less substance here.
What I need you to do, instead of calling me a phony, is answer my questions here, from THIS post. I UNDERSTAND that you don't like Darwin's theory and that you think it should be thrown out. I GOT IT. Now, tell me HOW.