I do not think the answer "yes or no" will ever be possible: the correct answer is: "sometimes yes, sometimes no, most frequently something in between". [in case you might beinterested, I'm attaching my short comment on that matter].

You might find this article useful

While this is not my area specifically, the issue has come up often in human and primate paleontology and my evolutionary biology course. My sense is that there are logical errors being made in the comparison of the two. You can see it in Fatuyma’s book. One graph showing phyletic gradualism indicated by changes in mean values for species or large groups of populations while PE evidence is individuals or small splinter groups. A large group including a small splinter group with dramatic change, will change the mean very little. So little, in fact, that many have argued that there is no possible advantage gained by these tiny changes. The logical error here is that the mean is not a representation of the change in the adaptation of an individual- means are not externally real organisms. A change of .1 pounds in a mean based on a large N could easily include an organism that has a adaptation altering 10 pound increase - in an individual or small isolated population which is now averaged over a much larger N which makes it a .1 change in the larger sample mean. This does not recognize the difference between individuals and means. And, you are making a error when you are Inappropriately comparing 2 different kinds of statistical representations of the same evolutionary change. Thus, PG and PE are the same phenomenon looked at from 2 non-comparable statistical perspectives. I don’t think there is a difference to debate - just the recognition of the logical errors that led to the debate.