PE is not a competing theory to Darwinism, but is a theory within it. Darwin himself agreed with most of PE:
Many species when once formed never undergo any further change but become extinct without leaving modified descendants; and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they have retained the same form. It is the dominant and widely ranging species which vary most frequently and vary most, and varieties are often at first local—both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links in any one formation less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they have spread, and are discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species.
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=583&itemID=F387&viewtype=side
He also said "Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree. In the oldest tertiary beds a few living shells may still be found in the midst of a multitude of extinct forms... The Silurian Lingula differs but little from the living species of this genus".
So who suggested that entirely uniform gradualism was a fundamental part of expected fossil finds? Darwin's writings don't correspont with your caricature of the theory.
It seems you have set up another Aunt Sally to knock down (isn't that a logical fallacy?)
