Are Point Mutations problematic for ToE?

I don't suppose she explained how she was quantifying "genetic information"?If not, it seems to be neither true nor false but simply meaningless.However, it is possible to dispute such a vague proposition. Consider that under any meaningful definition of "genetic information" it must be a variable of state --- that is, two identical genomes must have the same amount of genetic information.Very well then. Suppose that at a certain locus a single nucleotide substitution takes place; let us say a change from A to T. Let us suppose that Purdom is right about this mutation, and that it decreases the "genetic information" of the genome.Then it is clear, is it not, that the opposite mutation (i.e. at the same locus, and from T to A) must necessarily increase "genetic information".And in general, the proposition that some mutations decrease "genetic information" implies that others must be able to increase it.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There's a funny echo in here ...

"Point mutation" can mean one of two things. It can, as crashfrog wrote, mean the substitution of one base for another; or it can mean that or the insertion or deletion of a single base; as distinct from larger-scale mutations such as the fusion of two chromosomes.To avoid confusion you can write "single nucleotide substitution" to mean point mutation in the first sense.The same reasoning as I presented obviously applies (with suitable amendments) to insertions and deletions as well --- an insertion is reversed by a deletion, and a deletion by an insertion.