Quote:

The whole information concerning a species is contained in its gene pool. Basically, the information amount is equivalent to the sum of all alleles in the gene pool. Can we agree on that?



Quote:

Not quite. The AMOUNT of genetic data isn't what I'm referring to when I talk about order or information. Its the specificity of the data. If I have a chain of 100,000 bases that are the equivelant of DNA nonsense, that's not nearly as worthwhile as a chain of 1000 bases that contains the information for something specific.



You're confusing the DNA with the gene pool. The gene pool is defined by the alleles existing in a species at a given time. Your 100,000 bases of nonsense have no affect on the gene pool - only the coding DNA parts have.

Quote:

Either way, this was a point mutation. Its not like a bunch of nucleotides were inserted and manufactured these much more complex proteins.



Where did you know that? The original article about the Milano mutation does not determine what sort of mutation it was. Besides, it does not matter for evolution whether a new feature is caused by a point mutation or by inserting a string of nucleotides.

Quote:

In fact, the majority of these proteins tend to bind together and become useless, or less useful. So explain to me how this is more complex? More complex in that they've binded together? That's not very useful, though. In that case, I'll just post this message twice, and then you'll have no reason to disagree with me.



I was referring to the fact that the unpaired proteine gained a new function.

Before the mutation: unpaired proteine that produces HDL.

After the mutation: paired proteine that produces nothing, plus unpaired proteine that produces HDL plus acts as antioxidant.

Seems a clear increase of the complexity to me. In case we can not agree on what complexity is: One definition of complexity of a system is the number of bits required for describing the system's properties.

I have the impression that you see everything deviating from God's plan of a species as 'information loss'. This is however a system of belief and not of science.

Quote:

If a new allele is added, then fine and dandy. It really doesn't matter for evolution. The information in the added allele has to be more specific, not just beneficial, not just 'wasn't there before'. Otherwise mutations are just scrambling DNA to all sorts of effects without writing anything more specific.



A new allele in the gene pool adds a new feature to individuals of a species. That definitely matters for evolution. I fail to see what you mean with 'specific' - what's the difference between a 'specific' allele and a 'not specific' allele?