I would like some examples of how the process of natural selection and mutations created new information. This must not occur by playing around with gene switching.
As I read your question, you seem to be asking for the development of a new gene, but one which does not in turn require the loss of another gene.
So, using a hypothetical example.
A creature has Gene A, Gene B, Gene C. They each do different things. B codes for a protein which breaks down lactose, let's say.
A mutation occurs which causes B to change.
The creature now has Gene A, Gene D, Gene C. New Gene D codes for a protein which strengthens hair or whatever.
Even though Gene D is new and novel, you would not consider it "new information" since the net result is still 3 genes.
Am I close?
In that case, let's look at another example:
Gene A, Gene B, Gene C again.
This time there is a mutation which causes gene duplication.
So, the new organism has Gene A, Gene B, Gene B, Gene C.
The "new" Gene B is exactly the same as the old Gene B. It's completely redundant.
A couple of generations later, a 2nd mutation occurs resulting in the switch from Gene B to Gene D.
So, now the organism is Gene A, Gene B, Gene D, Gene C.
The new organism can still process lactose (it has gene B) but also has stronger hair (it has gene D).
Would that scenario be considered "new information" since the net gain to the organism is an additional gene with a new property while not losing the existing gene with the original property.
If not, why not?
™ Version 4.2
(1)
