I count myself among the evolutionists who argue for a jerky, or episodic, rather than a smoothly gradual, pace of change. In 1972 my colleague Niles Eldredge and I developed the theory of punctuated equilibrium. We argued that two outstanding facts of the fossil record - geologically "sudden" origin of new species and failure to change thereafter (stasis)- reflect the predictions of evolutionary theory, not the imperfections of the fossil record. In most theories, small isolated populations are the source of new species, and the process of speciation takes thousands or tens of thousands of years. This amount of time, so long when measured against our lives, is a geological microsecond...

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

There's also the suggestion that the relatively brief time periods in which evolution was proceeding more rapidly, in the way you suggest, might have coincided with cataclysmic changes in climate and geology (implying a bit of cause and effect too) that would have been less conducive to fossilisation processes taking place undisturbed. The fossil record in transitional periods may be even more incomplete than for more stable periods, creating the illusion of a relative lack of "transitional forms".

We don't know, pete, but, unlike you and your unsavoury horde, we're putting some honest thought into it.