Rate changes for evolution

Can you supply a "geometrical" vision of your termed 'relative stasis' please?As to "base rate", in terms of a any sequence of data collection and analysis, I know by experience there is a exploratory tendency, which admitted IS subjective, that tends to extrapolate from a local knowledge to larger regions but it seems to me that Mayr's insistence that Croizat "accept" the standard rates (or perhaps 'base rate' as you had it) was a wrong way to grow"" biological thought or simply an ad hominomen on how Croizat reasoned reverse wise from a global or pantropical distributions to local "endemisms" or Cain centers of origin. There could be a better logical rework of Croizat's corpus if one were to get beyond the mass matrix defintions of NZ panbiogeographers per track width which so far I assoicate univocally with two-way velocities FROM empty space for any local endemism but this is less biological than even physical chemists think so it is not quite delimited even if it is logical. I almost think that it is possible to consider stasis in terms of the geography of different chrophyll stacks(intraorganically) but that is quite an extreme kind of thought on the subject.

This is not Brad's evc web site. I wanted to know what YOU thought not any "we". A description would be just fine. Personally, I dont "want" a 'state space' but if that is how you are to describe stasis relatively have at it. I dont mean for you to think that there is something "wrong" with what you said. I just wanted to know how you thought stasis data actually LOOKS. Sorry about Leon Croizatnotions. I just threw that in to buy time"" while I waited for you to respond. I like looking at something I understand when I open posts. It might have been possible for you to continue using the words "relative stasis" without making the geometry involved explict and I would like to participate in the conversation on this but I can not myself simply "sling" that neologisticaly about without causing mental distess to myself included inthe velocity.

Dont these conclusions rely on the notion of a past adaptation or anscestral form that is differnt from any view of taxonomy gleaned by only studying living kinds? Is not this a degree of subjectivity beyond that of any particular alpha taxonomic group becuase it involves a time interval and not just an origin in time short of the general concept of evolution itself??

As I read it Gould orginally used allopatry but it was ALL interms of speciation while he remains agnostic as to periparty,allopatry,polyplodiy. If I read him correctly he did not think that neobiology would invade the theoretical space he felt he opened for paleobiology by not needing to NAME the intermindable number of boundaries the resolution problem migh exascerbate. It is clear that as he thought Fisher's argument about species selection was "impotent" in the face of PE that he acknowdeges the differnt kinds of TIME I asked in question to you but still there is not way to COUNT objectively. My feeling like Gould has a "dominant stasis" feeling is that the form-making (including that preserved in rocks) can be better geometrized statistically such that conclusions that do not rely on his unsymmetrical relation of levels of selection can be arrived at. I have not done this as of yet. I hope this helps. I would perfer naming where Gould insists on statistical differences but that does not address the use of the distribution itslef which I think requires NOT using all of these DIFFERNT notions of time at the same stair step.

It is for reasons of this "time" that I am attempting to find the time in Einstein's notion of non-eucldian"time" else we have a plurivocity that remians unreduced and hence even if epistemologically one(I also doubt), it is ontologically divergent.

I would be satisfied if the branch-off was detailed with data of actual disruptive selection no matter the actual time(between natural and artifical selection under debate).