Rate changes for evolution

Interesting post and good question.I do not think there can be a standard or steady rate of change. Certainly some sections of DNA are more susceptible to mutations so the randomness of mutations would affect the rates as they are realized. But I also think that the susceptibility to mutation has evolved to be in rough equilibrium with the need to change, to adapt to changes that occur to climate and ecology (elephants converting forest to savannah?). Thus those parts that are more likely to lead to viable mutations (live long enough to reproduce) become more mutation able and those parts that lead to non-viable mutations (spontaneous abortion deformed fetus) become less mutation able. Over long time periods this explains the evolved "hotspots" noted and the current rate of {mutation \ change} in a Nash equilibrium with the need to change.Hope that helps.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The only way to benchmark it that I can think of is to correlate it with the fossil record. We have the experimental information from the mitochondrial "eve" and the y-gene "adam" and the earliest known modern humans (160,000 years old Ethiopian skulls) and I believe both genetic data point closer to 200,000 years -- close but not on target, on the right side of the target ...This needs to be done for as many instances as can be found. That can then give you a plot of predicted vs actual age on a graph and see if it correlates good enough to use.Find the correlation before making too many predictions.The assumption that the rate is steady-state is just that, an assumption. The concept that genetic trees can be built from the age data so derived is a theory that needs to be validated, imho.I suspect the line will vary from a 45 straight line.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Speciation burst response to catastrophy caused vacuum would be opportunistic -- needs the {local niche or larger} {mass or large number} extinction to clear the slate. Gradual change would be more the rule in more stable conditions. Local extinctions could be confined to a single eco-system and not show up as mass events. This would allow PE and gradual as mechanisms.One of the things working against change in large well established populations is the interbreeding feedback to keep each member close to a normative value. Let that population spread into a new habitat and the dispersal alone would reduce interbreeding and allow more local variation.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

If I follow you correctlyYou should be able to look at the base rates of mutation in the two species and see different rates, do this for very similar species in different environments, one static and one open, and you can establish that the base rate is not fixed (it can be different for different species -- likely will be?)works for me.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

s'cool looks like we have a couple of ways to test for a base rate variation.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I look at the fossil record for pelycodus (click) and note that a few missing fossils would give the impression of PE as well. The divergence between forms is fairly rapid for the time scale.This is used as an example of smooth transition as opposed to PE, but to me this is like arguing over how fast is fast.ps - creationists note: speciation event ...Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}