That's a testable assumption. Let's look at a simple case.
Two alleles for a given gene locus in a population. Each with frequency of 0.5. Since the information for this gene would be the sum of each frequency multiplied by the log of each frequency, the information for that gene would be about 0.301. Now let's suppose a new mutation occurs, and eventually all three alleles have a frequency of about 0.333 each. (I used these to make the numbers simpler for you; if you like, I can use different frequencies) Now, the information for that gene is about 0.477.
The method uses Shannon's equation. It's also used to allow the internet to work efficiently, and to permit communication of spacecraft billions of kilometers from Earth over very low-powered transmitters.
Yep. No point in denial. That's how new information forms. You're probably confused about the meaning of "information." Learn about it here:
Information is a precise concept that can be defined mathematically, but its relationship to what we call ‘knowledge’ is not always made clear. Furthermore, the concepts ‘entropy’ and ‘information’, while deeply related, are distinct and must be ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
You lurch to the usual evo's deflection of explaining micro events (with which no one disagrees) when the question is to explain macro events.
You're still a bit confused. New information does not require speciation. It merely requires an increased uncertainty as to the message (in this case the specific genome of a member of the population). For example, if the allele is fixed, an there is only one for a specific gene, then the information for that gene is 0.0. If you sample an individual, you will have no more knowledge after the sample then you had before. If there are two alleles, each (for example) with a frequency of 0.5, then the information will be about 0.301, because sampling an example will show you which of the two alleles was present in that individual.
Shannon Entropy (SE) explains microevolution events but offers nothing to explain macroevolution events, novel body plans.
That's why the information story is such a loser for creationists. It really means nothing at all in terms of evolutionary processes. In fact, macroevolutionary changes can happen by a loss of information in the population genome. Would you like to learn how that works?
And you bring up another creationist misconception. Evolution produces nothing
de novo; it always involves a modification of something already present. You can't show me even one structure in animals that did not involve modification of something already existing. There's a good reason for that.
And as the Church points out, this is consistent with evolutionary theory. Couldn't be any other way, really. But you were already shown this. You've exhausted your talking points when you keep repeating the same refuted claims over and over. But it doesn't hurt to show you again. As I said, repetition is sometimes useful in teaching difficult concepts.
I think your "no novel structures" claim is a new one, though. Thanks for bringing that up. I'm sure everyone will be interested to see what "novel structure" you present as not being evolved from something else. What do you have?
I suggest you also check your parish's adult catechesis formation offerings. You should enroll.
When we started our current parish, my wife was asked to be the parish religious education director. I was drafted into teaching a class. And yes, the training was enlightening. The parish has grown, and we've both stepped down from teaching CCD. But we used the same Catechism every other parish does.
