<< Although it may seem trivial, the easiest example of demonstrating
that a *single* point mutation can "result in an increase in genomic
information" (Spetner's definition, not mine), is a reverse-mutation,
which converts a mutated base in a non-functional gene back to the
original base. After all, if a point mutation which wipes out the
function of a gene is described as losing information, how would we
describe a reverse-mutation which perfectly restores the original
sequence?>>
Other examples would include intragenic and intergenic supressors,
which are far more common than reverse mutations. Of course,
one could argue that these types of mutations restore the level
of information to its initial state, that is, it's an increase relative to
an earlier loss (thus it may not be a net increase). A smart creationist
might also focus on how we define this initial state and question how
much information it contained and how it got there in the first place.
I personally think mutations that are selected can indeed increase
information (especially when coupled to gene duplication), but I
wonder if it's really a piss poor mechanism. If it is, and given that
life is loaded with tons of information, there may be something solid
behind all this informational chest-thumping.
Mike