So where did the information come from that caused the mutation?
If the source of information is external to the organism, radiation, viruses and mutagenic chemicals are the most common.
I can understand how the reduction of information could happen.
But not how it could increase as new information would need to be coded. There is no known natural process for this to happen.
What's unnatural about the things I mentioned? What's unnatural about chemistry?
The mutations are changes in information, and therefore, by definition, new information. There can be environmental input in their cause, as I explained above.
However, the really important input of information from the environment is in the selection process. It is this that causes a mutation that happens to improve function to go to fixation across a population.
So, what's necessary to add "coded information", as you describe it, is an information rich environment.
A planet with a wide range of ever changing environments will input a great deal of information into varying chemical self-replicators.
We live on such a planet. Information is all around us, ready to be absorbed.
I've heard mention of the E-coli evolution miracle. Since all that happened was a group of e-coli lost control of the switch that allows them to metabolize citrate in low or no oxygen environments, it's fair to claim that whether information was gained or lost genetically is irrelevant (even though it was not gained), the one mutation that occurred at 20,000 and 32,000 generations does not give enough time for evolution. Over "10 trillion E-coli have been produced over the 22 year old experiment", equalling 1 million years of human life, and ONE genetic mutation has occurred.
ONE GENETIC MUTATION? What? You'll never learn from reading Conservapedia, Dennis.
Here's a chart of just one of the Lenski cultures after 20,000 generations, half way through the experiment, which shows the differences from the ancestral organism. Click on the pic. to enlarge.
Here, you see a graph of the increase in fitness over the first 20,000 generations, with another graph inset which shows the sharp increase in mutation rate and fitness after a mutator phenotype appeared and took over the population (at about 26,000 generations).
There are over 600 differences from the ancestor at 40,000 generations.
What is it with creationists/IDists and this nonsense. This is something like the third one we have had turning up here talking about amino acids in DNA. Is there some sort of handbook about how to show you know nothing about genetics/molecular biology that they are all following?
I realise that you're nervous about discussing things with me since I pointed out that you didn't know the difference between one mutation and 600 mutations.
However, I'm still happy to help you in your earnest request for examples of new information.
You'll find this review interesting, as it will help you understand some ways in which new information is produced resulting in phenotype novelty, and how the complexity of genomes can increase easily by mutation.