[Hajman]

And you aren't "strictly defined?" Is life not "strictly defined?"

Not according to Macro Evolution.

Biological life is also constrained by specific boundaries. I think I see what you mean by "tight" and you have a point. However, again I think it is you who have the responsibility to investigate this "tightness," quantify it and show why it leads to qualitatively different outcomes. I don't see any a priori reason for it to be different.

Actually, a tight boundry for change could be though of as output <= input. This is what Micro Evolution falls under. However, Macro Evolution falls under more of the output > input variety. A function is necessary in this case to explain how the first converts into the second (as the first will always be such, no matter how many iterations it goes through, unless something can alter it). As for the 'tightness', it's an inate property in GA algorithms. It's an effect of how the GAs work.

-The Hajman-

[edsheppa]

Not according to Macro Evolution. (i.e. life isn't strictly defined according to ME)

Well that's a novel definition as you seem to be saying that Macro Evolution == unconstrained. That's not what I mean by the term and I doubt many others mean it either. My definition is the advent and preservation of novel function. By your definition ME isn't necessary for the biological life we see since that is constrained by natural physical law.

However, Macro Evolution falls under more of the output > input variety.

You'll need to explain what you mean by input and output. Are you saying there's no conceivable sequence of small genetic changes that could lead from the genome of a unicellular organism to yours? It seems evident to me that there is. The input is the original genome and the small changes and the output is your genome. In what way is the output greater than the input?