Can Domestic Selection cause Macroevolution?

It seems to me that there is an unresolved issue in Quantum Mechanics as to uncertainty(and causality) that could portend a shift in biology itself (say with the difference of hierarchic thermodynamics and macrothermodynamics) such that NS becomes DS even though historically DS gave rise to NS. It could be that the heterogenity of the environment (no matter the affect of the abiota biotically) becomes mastered by man technologically into a homogeneity that no difference of infinitesimal differences can materialize in macroscopic unobservables as they effect some or any difference of nature vs nurture in either case of DS or NS or the other way around.

You misunderstood me especially if you desire to have said what is equally "non"applicable. I was merely parroting the work of Craik with a informed opinion on present conditions concerning the form or structure of evolutionary theory. I did not intend to say that DS IS NS but that the future of evolutionary theory MAY become more DS like than the move to show NS in nature since the early 80s.I will show you how Craik in an attempt to situate Darwin's "Origin of Species" makes that the limit that QM goes toward and sometimes beyond philosophically ,where it can not describe nor predict the stalking of the mouse, etc., points to a different view of causality I was suggesting could from within a future of QM (specifically I was refering to a use of phenomenological thermodynamics) suggest a newer view of NS itself (DS)IF. I did not say it IS.I should think it would be a highly relevant contribution of internet e/c if it should become discussed beyond speculation that DS effects a new NS or MACROevolution. I would not hold this against the likes of creationists for driving it in that direction. It would be the first really significant contribution beyond simple difference of YEC and ID vs TOE etc. You can not say that QM can not predict these things means not that what I said was equally nonplyable but instead recalls the difference of a physicist and biologist more narrowly and poignantly.If you think you can swim, head for the deeper water.
see also
EvC Forum: Criticizing neo-DarwinismThis message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-04-2006 02:17 PM

The seperation, if it did more than preexist ID issues, I caught less with the NOTION of speciation (as there was plenty of disagreement about what a Drosophila species was anyway in the EVO Community (Will Provine in debate (1996?) did think that it was a point that Phil Johnson admitted the notion of Hawian Drosophila hence the simple evc equivalence of vertical evolution with speciation (and there are plenty of issues further in evo lit as you do know...))but rather more with a division of horizontal vs vertical EVOLUTION. Since Creos had already asserted that the geocolumn was not veridical (Price, Scopes Trial era creationism) it made sense symbolically to attach the word "vertical" to that aspect of translation in space and form-making that they had disagreed with (Gould's work outside
pure paleontology tries to dismantle nationalistically this significantly American goal directed discourse).There is no linguistic difficulty using Dobshansky's term "MESOEVOTLUION" here where verity is being speculated on. The version of extra gene frequency issues that this versatility in discussion engenders (niche construction between horizontal micro translations and form-making of any larger level of organization etc) may be new to both evolution in the sense of its only pursing speciation rather than mesoevolution (no matter the ecology)but the actual tissue involved could be informed by DS JUST as Darwin suspected NS VS LAWS OF GROWTH. This would be critical of Gould's attempts to fuse the mismeasure of man AND ontogeny and phylogeny if it was only about the "new information", no matter what that was, but it could also simply indicate that the term "genetic revolution" as used by Mayr for instance was underdetermined.With the change in policy to study chimp/human DNA in the
next 5 yrs might be making this newer discussion
extantoutside of the middle road I have sketched herein.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-05-2006 08:58 AM

Yea, and all I had in mind was that nano-technology may provide the means to start DS on the content of a "genetic revolution" Mayr thinks his version of biological thought grows. QM would have to be replyed with, however. Perhaps If I get daring I'll start to talk with CaveDiver.