Can Domestic Selection cause Macroevolution?

Haven't read the whole thread, but according to evos, it strikes me as incorrect if you believe homo sapiens evolved to separate mankind from being part of nature. In that regard, domestic selection is natural selection.

Haven't read the whole thread, sort of started with the first post and then your's. This is a very interesting fact on it's own. Can you speculate more on why they can interbreed despite being less related to jaguars and leopards, or maybe they can interbreed with leopards and jaguars too, but no one has tried to do that....maybe they would fight too much or something?One could test the idea by impregnating them under medication....but cruel, but still, it would be interesting to see?

Not following your argument at all. Maybe not using the analogy can help.First, there is no reason to think DS cannot create macroevolution if NS can create macroevolution.Secondly, one needs to avoid just viewing this from a superficial, simplistic perspective. What really happens with selection either domestic or natural? What happens generally is a reduction in genetic variation over longer periods of time. Not saying that there are no examples of genetic complexity being added, but what occurs with geographic or sexual isolation, for example, is a process decreasing genetic complexity or range within the group.That's why you can evolve dog breeds, but the further you evolve them, the less further you can. In other words, Darwinian evolution is really evolution in the wrong direction for what needs to take place to produce macroevolution or the type of evolution to evolve all the major classifications.

Why not? If NS can create macroevolution, then certainly DS can provided someone figures out how it is possible within NS. This is what evos claim, but can you show me the peer-reviewed studies that compare mutational rates (remember studies of mutational rates exist) that are considered beneficial with rates of genetic decrease due to isolation processes envisioned with microevolution.

Let's don't worry about the metric for beneficial although evos should have to present something there. Let's just see the studies showing higher beneficial mutation rates exceeding the rates of genetic decrease through isolation. We can discuss their definitions and metrics once the study is provided.

Presumably, the evo study substantiating this most basic claim would give it's reasons. Just show where a peer-review study has been done, or perhaps there hasn't been any? Just evos asserting something with no real published science to back it up....that's my guess since I have never been able to find anything, nor has anyone I have ever asked, despite it being a very basic factual claim of evos.

Can you show me the study that compares neutral and beneficial mutational rates, heck even bad mutational rates, any peer-reviewed studies whatsoever addressing this most basic claim of evos?I doubt you can. No one has ever been able to do so thus far. My guess is the studies weren't done and the assertions of evos just taken on faith to a degree.