Here is a repost from before when I described how information is added to the genome by mutation. It sounds like he just simply doesn't understand all the different kinds of mutations that occur.
Use it or part of it if you like.
Here are some basic types of mutations and how they work:
Duplication of a stretch of DNA. This is like accidentally copying part of a book twice. Example - when making a copy of a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12, you end up with a book that has chapters 1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11, 12
Deletion of a base pair. AATCTGTC becomes ATCTGTC
Addition of base pair AATCTGTC becomes ACATCTGTC
Transposition (like a mirror) AATCTGTC becomes CTGTCTAA
All of these can have no effect, an effect which is selected for, or an affect which is selected against.
To add information, first, take a functional gene, and make an extra copy using the duplication mutation.
That won’t hurt the organism, since the second copy is simply redundant. Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new. The organism still has the original copy doing whatever it is supposed to do, but now has the added ability of whatever the new gene does (such as digesting nylon, as in a species of bacteria).
The process can also add entire chromosomes .
OK, now lets list some mutations that could be what you are looking for:
Tails in human babies. Since creationists generally deny that humans evolved from lower primates, these tails would be “new”. As such, that mutation has certainly added something new. There have been a number of babies born with fully functional tails, including the ability to use the tail to signal emotional state (think of how a pooch does this already).
Other atavisms, such as mutations which make hind legs in whales. Since creationists generally don’t believe whales evolved from land-lubbers, being able to clamber onto land is a new and beneficial feature.
The “beautiful buttocks” mutation in sheep. I’ll look up the information on this one. I think this happened in the 80’s - a mutation in a sheep caused more muscular legs & buttocks. If this had been a wild sheep living near a mountain, a better ability to climb the mountain is clearly a benefit. As it was, this was a domestic sheep, and the farmer was overjoyed to be able to get more meat from this sheep, and the mutation was recognized a great thing. The farmer bred the sheep so as to preserve and sell this mutation.
The ability to digest nylon in one strain of bacteria. This is also clearly a very beneficial mutation, and more, it has been studied to show which gene mutated and how it did so. I don’t understand how this isn’t a beneficial mutation that adds information.
The ability of the monkyflower to metabolize copper compounds
Let’s look at the numbers again. The vast majority of mutations are expected to be neutral. This is because the vast majority of our DNA does nothing. It is like have a million volume encyclopedia, where only a few thousand volumes have real information, while the rest have gibberish or repeated sections, like if a volume had this:
and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and
For hundred of pages. We also have a lot of copies of working genes, but the copies are non-functional due to mutations. These are called “pseudo genes”. So mutations in any of that non functioning DNA doesn’t help or harm anyone.
There are lots of harmful mutations. Yep - we should expect that, since a change to a working gene that we need is likely to be a change that isn’t as good. And as I mentioned before, the number of mutations selected against (the harmful mutations) is completely irrelevant, since those mutations all disappeared with their unfortunate owners. If half of the mutations that have an effect are selected for, then the ration you want is 1:1, and you end up with only the "selected for" mutations. If there is only 1 helpful, "selected for" mutation in 5, then you ratio is 1:5, and you still have exactly the same number of mutations at the end of the day, since the ones that weren’t selected for are gone anyway. That's why the number of non-selected for mutations is irrelevant. See why the number of harmful mutations is unimportant?
Accumulating millions of good mutations is quite easy, since the bad ones are selected against and removed anyway, and we’ve had literally billions of years to accumulate the good ones that remain. Since we’ve seen at least the half dozen good ones mentioned above in just the past few decades, then just doing the math adds up to quite a few in a billion years - and that’s ignoring the fact that the half dozen I’ve listed is undoubtedly a tiny fraction of the ones that have occurred, since we don’t watch all births of all animals for any change - how could we?
™ Version 4.2
