TH
>Yes it does. It shows the speed of change?
>
>Which evolves faster
>species in stabilizing mode
>or a species in directional or diversifying mode?
>

That is my point entirely!


TH
Mine too. But I don't think you are putting
it all together.

Environmental adaption is high = stablizing
mode = no change = species not evolving.
We now know how slow this species will evolve
as compared to others - we now know that
it should remain the same in the fossil record
for millions of years - we now know its environment
was unchanging (a weather report of the earth then)
we now know it was prospering (no bottleneckes,
probably a stable to growing pop etc.)
We also know the reverse is true. We now can
compare the two groups.
This brings up all thousands of clues.

RSN
  Stabilizing selection results in no
change!  You question is simply asking "which changes faster, a
species in a mode where it doesn't change or a species in a mode where
it does change?"  Perhaps you don't realize that stabilizing selection
results in no evolution, that is no change! 

TH
Exactly - don't you see what that means then?



RSN
  It is generally the
reason why punctuated equilibrium produces species that persist for
long periods of time with no apparent change in morphology.  When
conditions are suitable, directional selection quickly produces new
forms which then replace the older ones, only to themselves persist
because of stabilizing selection.

TH
OK then you agree that my model proves
punctuated equilibrium hypotheses!
That alone is a major discovery. It should
end the debate on punctuated equilibrium

It also proves why different speeds of
evolution.

It is an important clue in looking at
why a species has evolved at the speed
it has. If it has evolved slowly, then
it has not had to adapt to selection pressures.
It has lived in an environment that has suited
it - a stable environment - a temp zone that
has not shifted. If we note a major shift 
anywhere - then we know a major change
happened in the environment.
We can look in the fossil record and see
when those pressures happened. We can
try to surmise what they were at those
points in time. More clues.

If it has not evolved quickly, it has been
in an environment well suited to it.
That gives us all kinds of clues.
IF we know the environment then we should
know the speed of evolution of the species in
it, or vice versa - IF we know that a species
has changed a lot - we know the environment
or other selection pressure has changed a
lot.
These are major clues!

Another ex. - IF we know there has been
a great change in some 'armaments" we know
the species was under selection pressure -
probably some type of arms race.
Now we can narrow down the type of change -
More major clues!

Let's say we have an extinction era. Then we
know that all species will be ill adapted at 
first - we should expect massive and quick
change due to my model - after extinctions.

At the start of life - when nothing was yet
well adapted - we would expect incredible
selection pressure - and according to my
model - change should be extremely fast
at the origin. Thus life began and changed
very very quickly.

Thus anytime we know either side of
the equation (ex.
1. the environment was stable 
then we know that
2. the species changed little)
Or vice versa.

Do you disagree with any of these?
Do you see how important it can be in
uncovering evolutionary clues to every aspect
of evolution due to selection pressure?



RSN
  Your notion of the distinction
between stabilizing and directional selection, coupled with the idea
of stasis and change is pertinent and important, but not terribly
novel. And, as I pointed out, is well described in virtually every
elementary biology textbook. 

TH
If every text had seen the importance of my model
it would be clearly stated that selection pressure
is directly related to adaptation.
There also would be no lingering debate about
punctuated equilibrium, etc. 
Do you contend all this is accepted now?


RSN
The connection between stabilizing selection and no change or between
directional selection and change is so obvious as to be uninteresting.

TH
I would say so obvious (it is inherent in their very
def.) that its importance is overlooked.

RSN
The distinction between stabilizing and directional selection is
indeed an important one but, as I said, well known and elementary.

TH
I've never read my model in any publication ever.
Except my own.





 >>
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 4/27/04 11:58:50 AM