How mutation adds information to a population genome

[The Barbarian]

Information, in a living population, is the amount of information for each gene locus.    Since most genes have a number of alleles (different versions of the gene) the total information for that gene would be found by multiplying the frequency of each allele by the log of the frequency of each allele, and then summing all the products.   

Hence, every new mutation increases the information in a population.    Which is evolution, i.e. a change in allele frequency in a population over time.    Demonstration of this will be provided if requested.

It often the case that isolated populations have lower information than larger ones for the obvious reason.    And these are often where speciation occurs.   Following speciation, mutation often greatly increases information, for example as in Hawaiian flies and Darwin's finches.

 

[one.opinion]

I'm not a mathematician, but to me, the "information argument" makes no sense. I've heard many claim that evolution cannot lead to an increase in information. However, when genes duplicate and diverge (see more below), that seems to be a very strong refutation of that claim.

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_General_Biology_(Boundless)/18%3A_Evolution_and_the_Origin_of_Species/18.4%3A_Evolution_of_Genomes/18.4D%3A_Gene_Duplications_and_Divergence#:~:text=Gene duplications do not always,and eventually form new species.

[The Barbarian]

The key is, that for population geneticists and other biologists, "genetic information" refers to populations, not individuals.   Short of your example of gene duplication followed by mutation of one copy, mutation doesn't really change information in an individual.   But every new mutation in a population adds to information.

BTW, it has been noted that mutation of non-coding DNA to produce a new gene is more common than had previously been thought and is a major contributor to new genes:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123142029.htm

[Diaste]

Ideas aimed at explaining how organisms change, or evolve, over time date back to Anaximander of Miletus, a Greek philosopher who lived in the 500s B.C.E. Noting that human babies are born helpless, Anaximander speculated that humans must have descended from some other type of creature whose young could survive without any help. He concluded that those ancestors must be fish, since fish hatch from eggs and immediately begin living with no help from their parents. From this reasoning, he proposed that all life began in the sea.

Anaximander was correct; humans can indeed trace our ancestry back to fish. His idea, however, was not a theory in the scientific meaning of the word, because it could not be subjected to testing that might support it or prove it wrong. In science, the word “theory” indicates a very high level of certainty. Scientists talk about evolution as a theory, for instance, just as they talk about Einstein’s explanation of gravity as a theory. [emphasis mine]

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/theory-evolution/

So it's not just allele change over time, it's one organism changing over time to a completely different organism. 

This is contradictory to what God said and did with the fact 'bearing after their own kind', and that from the beginning.

Allele change over time is a distraction from the missing fossil record, a dearth which dooms evolution.

 

 

[nobody]

 The God that created this realm (cosmos) had created others that live in this realm. Some more advance minds, some less. Some that would try and altered our DNA rather change. It may seem that possibly evolve is the product but not so. Just as Adam had 2 different places before, Earth the 3 rd place, many others may have moved and tracing DNA would be very hard to do.

[ayin jade]

4 hours ago, nobody said:

 The God that created this realm (cosmos) had created others that live in this realm. Some more advance minds, some less. Some that would try and altered our DNA rather change. It may seem that possibly evolve is the product but not so. Just as Adam had 2 different places before, Earth the 3 rd place, many others may have moved and tracing DNA would be very hard to do.

Adam had 2 different places before, Earth the 3 rd place

What???

[nobody]

2 hours ago, ayin jade said:

Adam had 2 different places before, Earth the 3 rd place

What???

Yes

[ayin jade]

51 minutes ago, nobody said:

Yes

Please explain and where you get this belief

[nobody]

17 hours ago, ayin jade said:

Please explain and where you get this belief

Gen 2 v-8 created Adam, not in Eden, Gen 2 v-15 makes a planet, places Adam there Eden, Gen 3 v-24 moves him east of Eden another planet. 3 places but you believe all was here but not so. Adam's memory only starts after woman because God had put Him asleep of forgetfulness when women was created and took his brightness shared with woman. Adam knows not that He was more brightness then God expected and was in the realm above the cosmos. God recalls, not Adam.

[nobody]

3 minutes ago, nobody said:

Gen 2 v-8 created Adam, not in Eden, Gen 2 v-15 makes a planet, places Adam there Eden, Gen 3 v-24 moves him east of Eden another planet. 3 places but you believe all was here but not so. Adam's memory only starts after woman because God had put Him asleep of forgetfulness when women was created and took his brightness shared with woman. Adam knows not that He was more brightness then God expected and was in the realm above the cosmos. God recalls, not Adam.

Sorry Got this from Jesus