If it’s physically possible, what prevents it from happening? What is the barrier to the transfer of information?
Information is conserved in a global sense.
This can be seen in good GA programs (such as those that link AI algorithms with AL). It allows for a dynamic space, but the information space never truely grows.
This is true for a closed system. In life, organisms don’t function as closed systems.
However, the 'organism' potential to adapt to that particular space is unlimited (as far as we can make it). The way I understand it, we're not looking at a one dimensional evolutionary shift. It's easily 2 (or more) dimensions. And an infinite shift and growth in one dimension doesn't necessarily mean a shift or growth in another. I think I understand what you're saying. That as the space changes and grows, then the structure will grow. I agree with this. Also, I agree that both A and B will grow as this happens. However, it appears you're saying that the information space will also grow. This I see as a problem independent of our adaptation to the fitness space. Another dimension in the problem; an extra shift it would need to take. The current evolution algorithms don't disallow this shift as you explain it. It simply doesn't require it, need it, and doesn't seem to lead to it on it's own, and it hasn't been demonstrated (it may not be the scientists fault. Nature might require all that time. However, for whatever reason, it hasn't been demonstrated).
GA’s are rather limited. Interesting things begin to happen when they can interact with each other. A bit like cellular automata. GA’s are designed to vary the description of solutions to a particular problem. It’s easy to see that evolution doesn’t work this way. And just because GA’s don’t generate novel information, this doesn’t mean that life can’t. Artificial intelligence, for instance doesn’t duplicate the human brain. This doesn’t mean that theories about human cognition are wrong. It rather means they are incomplete. Or that the capability to implement all theories simultaneously don’t yet exist.
When the immediate end results of Micro Evolution show a steady state in the information space, and the end results of Macro Evolution show an (obvious) expanded state in the information space, and the Evolutionist claims that the first will lead to the second (with no further explination, and clumping the two together as if there is no difference), my answer is, by necessity, "Prove it". (This is just my rant to show you where I'm comming from. :) At any rate, I think your explaination better explains things then "Micro and Macro Evolution are the same".
In a very trivial sense, they are the same. The biological processes, such as natural selection, play a role at each level. And micro changes lead to macro changes. I usually object to the claim that micro + time=macro. I use the example of an ant colony, which exhibits an ordered behavior when viewed from a macro perspective. And, like CA’s the individual ants are simply using preprogrammed responses to their environment for their seemingly collective behavior. Yet, the difference between an organized colony and a disorganized group of ants is not one of time. It’s ant density. And it’s probably related to the concentration of olfactory stimuli in the local environment.
There are some obvious fundamentally different processes which work at the species or population level which don’t work at the genetic level. Some pecies extinctions, for example, can be traced to catastrophic climactic events. On the other hand, some micro changes can lead to instant macro events. Small mutations in switch and control genes, like the homeobox genes, lead to massive body plan changes. Speciation in some fruit flies, for instance, can be traced to single point mutations in gamete recognition proteins. There’s your proof – however, when speaking of macro, I suspect you aren’t speaking of speciation events but of the invention of novel function. And, of course, this can also be traced to changes at the micro level. In fact, this is done in the laboratory in the generation of peptides and RNAs with novel functional features.
I’m curious as to where you draw the line of distinction between possible micro evolution and impossible macro evolution. Aside from my assumptions above, what is your definition of macroevolution? As to the relatedness between organisms, why does genetic and morphological similarity imply a relationship within a species but not between species?