How can DNA gain "information"?

Light and vibration are the two core energy fields of the universe. Most probably they are inter-related in some way. My intuitive view is vibration is more core to everything than light and this would largely be backed up by resonance science.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/kajabi-storefronts-produc...

DNA is the core biochemical molecule within humans that determines how they grow, develop, respond to environmental conditions, evolve. The interaction of DNA with  the universal energy fields of both light and vibration determine the outcome of that individual human being's growth, development, and evolution.  Therefore, the interaction of light and vibration with human DNA is how the DNA primarily acquires information. 

The all important *HARMONIZATION* of the individual human being's energy field (aura) with the core universal energy fields of light and vibration, is what creates positive interactions with DNA for the individual. Unbalanced energy field (aura) of the individual creates aberrations in the interaction with the universal core energy fields of light and vibration. It is therefore of paramount importance for an individual human being to *balance* their energy field (aura) to become highly connected with natures intention for growth, development and evolution.

Our DNA is actually more capable than any super computer memory chip. One of the things it contains is the memories of all of our ancestors. IF you were able to access this information you would have no doubt that Adam and Eve were created by God. Interestingly enough from time to time a little of this information "leaks" out and we know things that we would have no other way of knowing.

Information is difficult both to define and quantify but generally we recognise it when we see it. If I send the ingredients for a recipe that is some information. If I then send you the directions that is more information. But can we quantify how much information? Not that I know of.  

Information theory has a measure sometimes called Shannon Information. This is a misnomer since Shannon actually called it Entropy and it provides information about the SIZE of the message but not about the information IN the message, which is why totally random noise can have higher Shannon Entropy than a meaningful message. 

Specifically in relation to information in DNA; 

“There has been increasing recognition that genes deal with information processing. They have been referred to as "subroutines within a much larger operating system". For this reason, approaches previously reserved for computer science are now increasingly being applied to computational biology [1]. If genes can be thought of as information-processing subroutines, then proteins can be analyzed in terms of the products of information interacting with laws of physics. It may be possible to advance our knowledge of proteins, such as their structure and functions, by examining the patterns of functional information when studying a protein family.” https://tbiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186... 

While theoretically it is possible for the genome to gain information through random mutations there are far more ways for a mutation to damage the information that is already there. If a beneficial change requires more than a couple of mutations before it produces a benefit then it is essentially beyond the reach of the mutation-selection mechanism. 

I believe your confused and believe this gibberish is informative or intelligent in some way. You would need to go back to your Grade School Biology books and "gain some information" for your lacking much!

To give one obvious example, there is gene duplication followed by neofunctionalization. A relatively simple DNA replication error can create an extra copy of some gene. With an extra backup copy lying around, mutations in this gene are free to begin accumulating without causing problems to the organism. Over time, one of the copies can change to the point that the protein it codes for changes its binding properties and begins to do an entirely different job. Over longer time periods, this process can lead to entire gene families that are clearly related but do wildly different things. Thousands of examples of this are observed in nature. In fact, it's quite easy to build phylogenetic trees of individual genes that replicate the evolutionary history of their hose species very well.

Edit - responding to CRR's crap here instead of trying to cram it into comments:

CRR is pretending, as a gotcha, that the only type of observation that we can draw knowledge from is direct observation, claiming that if we didn't see it with our own eyes, then we don't know anything about it. This is, of course, idiotic horseshit. Almost EVERYTHING you know about everything did not come from firsthand observation. If that is our standard, then we don't know about Christopher Columbus or the concept of bacteria or, for many people, the state next door.

The truth is that we are all constantly observing EVIDENCE and making judgements about how reliable it is. The newspaper tells me about a war in a distant country. History books written by people I trust to have done their research tell me about events of the distant past. And I trust science to have done its work in figuring out the germ theory of disease, and I know that antibioitics, developed with that theory, make me better when I am sick.

Similarly, science is based on observation of evidence. No matter how much he twists, wriggles, and squirms to get out of it, there is a VAST amount of evidence for evolution. VAST. It is recorded in the fossil record and the genomes and bodies of organisms alive today. He seems to think that, like a magical fairy, if he tricks a scientist into saying something juuuust right, it will all disappear in a poof.

On top of everything else, CRR is being breathtakingly, stunningly hypocritical, because while holding science to an impossibly high standard of proof, at the very same time, he pretends that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the correct alternative is magic. There is, of course, no evidence whatsoever - direct or indirect - that what he believes is true, but we are expected to just accept it at his word.

This ability to believe two completely contradictory and opposite philosophies at the same time is a hallmark of creationism, and in fact, is required to be able to cling onto any of this absolute wad of garbage belief.

Actually I think everything is devolving