>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?
That does not qualify as a gain in information, and you know that.
If the information is already present, deleting then restoring it is not
what anybody means by an increase in information. Producing the system
necessary to convert a reptilian scale into an avian feather involves an
increase in information of the system. All the arm-waving in the world
will not provide a cogent explanation for such an increase in information.
Even if you are correct in asserting that increases in information content
in the Spetnerian sense can be demonstrated in, say, bacteria, that is not
the order of information increase that will work in the above example.
Art
http://geology.swau.edu