What I placed of an old debate was a synopsis to simply explain that I am no scientist in the academic sense although I engage the debate. I suspect you have gotten that part. I also set out to show they have rigid positions that dismiss other ways of perceiving and explaining things.

Having said that,

A principle, central to quantum mechanics is, two complementary parameters like position and momentum and energy and time cannot both be known to infinite accuracy; the more you know about one, the less you know about the other. I disagree with this but I will say why another time.

In a more generalized sense, scientists state that the uncertainty principle tells us the act of observing changes the observed in fundamental way. This is true from the position of certain observers but not true for everyone so it is not a principle.

I disagree with these broad definitions because scientists have generally disregarded other ways of perceiving things and have imposed their narrow view as a principle. What if you can see one state and changing states simultaneously therefore find no contradiction in them.

This may be a weak example but its one that comes to mind now.
I see you being aggressive to stimulate discussions while sharing good information. I am seeing you one way but I am still seeing you changing and I could see your intent may be to find out more and also share more. These are contradictory states but I see no contradiction in purpose. Now I could be wrong in this example and I could analyze it differently and still see no contradiction.

Heisenberg's route to uncertainty lies in a debate that began in early 1926 between Heisenberg and his closest colleagues on the one hand, who espoused the "matrix" form of quantum mechanics, and Erwin Schrödinger and his colleagues on the other, who espoused the new "wave mechanics."
http://www.aip.org/history/heisenberg/p08.htm
I will get back to this in a future discussion because I feel the two theories were incomplete.

You said
If one denies a plant light; the leaves will change from green to white. So the change was stimulated from the environment. If the change in the environment persist; the genotype is affected and the phenotypic changes become permanent and is transmitted to the offsprings through the genotype.”

The instructions for change or withdrawal are generated from within the phytochrome molecule of plants so although the external environment sparks the need for change the change in the outward appearance of plants start internally before it is visible externally. Its like getting sick when you come down with the flew much took place inside before you observe the symptom.

In a general sense what you stated is correct on that.

You said,
"There is no certainty about which members of the population who will adapt and survive in the new conditions; but there is a certainty that a large minority will adapt and survive. Hence, through this process; the organisms in the population would have attained a new equilibrium of life. That's how I think Heisenberg's Principle of Uncertainty applies as a model to the evolutionary changes in any given population."

Stay with this point for a while, "but there is a certainty that a large minority will adapt and survive" What do you or Heisenberg mean by a 'large minority'. Explain this so I could respond.

NB:
You have not hit any nerve, if you check back you will see I write in blocks sometimes to highlight certain words. I see you also do the same. I copied the quote from the former post.