I do not know if I would say " catagorically good ", but stabilizing selection does eliminate the extreme morphologies in a population of organisms. Remember the taget of selection is the individual ( gene ) and the population evolves. So, saying something that is the result of natural selection is " good " for the population is rather confused as individuals are selected.
So, extreme morphologies could be " good " for a population depending on the immediate environment.
Directional selection
That would be the Stabilizing Selection where there will me not a lot of genetic variation. The curve of the population allele frequency would be quite thin with the extreme being in the middle.
This type of natural selection is called stabilizing selection because the mean traits of the population are being selected for against the immediate environment.
Stabilizing selection typically results in less genetic diversity because it selects against extreme phenotypes, narrowing the range of traits present in a population. This leads to the preservation of intermediate phenotypes that are favored by the selective pressures, reducing overall genetic variation.
Well, Directional Selections and Stabilizing selections are different because in Directional Selection, the frequency of a particular trait moves in one direction in a range, while in Stabilizing Selection, the distribution becomes narrower, tending to "stabilize" the average by increasing the proportion of similar individual. Also, I'm not sure about this but I think the continued gene flow tends to decrease the diversity between populations.
The average, distributed normally, trait in phenotype of a population is selected for. Take height in humans as an example. We have variation there, but there are too few ten foot humans and too few 2 foot hymans in the human population because natural selection in it's stabilizing form makes such height extremes reproductively unsuccessful in all earth's immediate environments.
Stabilizing selection would result in a graph showing a peak at the intermediate phenotype, with fewer individuals at the extreme phenotypes. This is because individuals with intermediate phenotypes are favored, leading to the reduction of extreme phenotypes in the population over time.
Yes, stabilizing selection favors average individuals by selecting against extreme phenotypes and maintaining the status quo. It arises when individuals with intermediate traits have a higher fitness compared to those with extreme traits, leading to a reduction in genetic variation over time.
Because natural selection only preserves incremental beneficial traits to the organism and many different areas of the organism are undergoing mutation and natural selection at the same time against the backdrop of the immediate environment. If a population of organisms, subject to allele change due to natural selection, is not in a changing environment, or split in a allopatric event, then adaptive change will be very slow, or will not happen at all and selection will winnow those variants and stabilizing selection is taking place. Regression to the mean of phenotype.
No because theres no selective advantage
Stabilizing selection is a type of natural selection. An example of stabilizing selection is birth weigh in humans. It has been proven that early mortality is highest for extreme birth weights.
When nothing happens to exert strong population pressure on that population, natural selection favors the allele frequency already present. When mutations cause new traits, natural selection weeds these traits out because they're not as efficient as the others.