Two for one or twice as fast selection

[Tom Hendricks]

Two for one or twice as fast selection.

Looking at life as a catabolic / anabolic split may help explain
punctuated equilibrium, symbiosis, and why there is natural selection
if most mutations are negative.

The opposite but complimentary processes of catabolic and anabolic may
be a motor that pushes natural selection more quickly than we had
thought. Most positive changes in one side will promote a positive
change in the other to catch up. Example. Human brain size grew. That
was a selective advantage. But to do that the hominids needed more
energy to supply the brains needs. Brain growth demanded improvements
of energy. OR it could have been the other way around, and
improvements on the catabolic side may have allowed the anabolic side
to build larger brains. Either way a change on one side demanded a
catch up improvement on the other.

This speedier natural selection process would help explain punctuated
equilibrium and why species seldom change, but when they do they seem
to change in a major way.

This speedier natural selection process would also help explain the
symbiosis idea of Lynn Margulis. Except in this case it is not the
symbiosis of two different species, but the symbiotic changes due to
the opposite but complimentary processes of catabolic and anabolic.

Selection on either catabolic or anabolic side puts pressure on the
other side for change to match. If not then we have an impossible
situation where every mutation would have an instant matching mutation
on its counterpart. Ex. a positive mutation on catabolic processes,
would have to have an exact instant positive mutation on the connected
anabolic process, and that seems foolish at best. Example note fat
storage. That clearly shows that the catabolic and anabolic processes
do not work exactly in tandem at the same time. How could fat reserves
be stored if it did? Therefore it seems highly plausible that the two
opposite but complimentary processes, have evolved separately, and are
regulated separately for the flexible advantages that gives.

Comments on these controversial ideas?