How does this relate to the conceptual approach in biology of theoretically extrapolating microevolution into macroevolution?
A casual, unsophisticated observer on a housing construction site might reasonably misinterpret the field supervisor verbally discussing issues, giving directions, and waving their arms for workers on the jobsite to go here or there and to do this or that, in-the-moment in the reactive mode, incorrectly assuming this visual representation to be the main creative source of the information that designs and builds the house. What this casual observer is actually witnessing on the jobsite in terms of information dissemination is miniscule in relation to the mountain of information already in-place that forms the “body-plan” design and construction of the house.
Charles Darwin observing the variations among finches on the Galapagos Islands in the middle 1830’s might reasonably infer that what he was witnessing was the creative process in action, totally unaware of the massive body of information contained in the microscopic world of DNA not discovered until a hundred and twenty years later in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson. Without an understanding of the mountain of information that supports the genetic makeup and the incredibly complex body-plan architecture of a finch or any other type of bird, Darwin at the time would be like the casual observer on the housing construction site mistakenly interpreting in-the-moment problem-solving in the reactive mode as the main creative force, rather than merely a few fine-adjustments being made at the marginal periphery of the total information package.
The action of problem-solving in the reactive mode in housing construction is easily recognized, even when mistakenly misinterpreted by the casual, unsophisticated observer. Problem-solving in the reactive mode becomes even more clearly recognized when it beneficially translates into a written, hard-copy, documented feedback loop of information directly communicated back to the design and construction team to be proactively re-designed and field managed out of the construction of future projects entirely. Looking for and identifying the reactive mode in housing construction is easy. It is like looking for something easy to find in broad daylight…with a flashlight.
In the microscopic world of DNA, RNA, proteins, amino acids, and in the diverse body-plans formulated at the initial division of embryonic cells, we do not see any feedback loop of information that would constitute the main creative informational basis for the physical and lifestyle variation of living things we observe in the natural world.
Natural selection, as far as science can tell, as well as by definition, is entirely in the reactive mode. The mountain of creative information in the living cell and its DNA is already there, fully functioning, and in-place. The differences in genes that produce the slight variations within species that allow for adaptation to differing ecosystem habitats are already in existence.
The genetic based variations in Darwin’s finches that allows for their survival amidst cyclical weather pattern changes on the Galapagos Islands chain are already in operation. The inbuilt variability in finch characteristics, adapting to cyclical weather changes affecting habitat conditions, producing temporarily oscillating fluctuations in the relative populations of the thirteen types of finches identified on the Galapagos archipelago, was fully functioning in the mid-1830’s when Darwin first observed this phenomenon.
This microevolutionary process in the reactive mode does not cause fluctuations in the main body-plan architecture of Darwin’s finches. Genetic variation is not putting out radically creative characteristics that can be naturally selected that would alter Darwin’s finches into something entirely different like a hybrid finch/duck or a finch/hawk or a finch/goose…yet this is the central motive force theorized for common descent.