Can random mutations cause an increase in information in the genome?

Well, evidence that evolution has occurred is overwhelming -- the evidence exists in many different fields of biology, and is observed by many different scientists using a variety of different observational and experimental methodologies. The evidence is so overwhelming that we can safely say that evolution is an established fact.

Information is the key factor if microevolution is going to eventually extrapolate into macroevolution. The evolutionists might try to counter this by pointing out that the reason we may not see new information arise is because it is extremely rare. So rare, in fact, that it might not ever happen in our lifetime or even in several generations. Admittedly, this might actually be true when it comes to multi-cellular life forms; however, if this type of evolution is true or is at least even possible, then one might not have to look much further than microscopic single-cellular life forms such as bacteria to observe the changes. Under the right conditions, a bacterium can divide every 20 minutes.[3] This means if the conditions are right, one bacterium can multiply into billions of bacteria within 24 hours. As any biologist can testify, the numbers at which bacteria can populate is staggering, and because bacteria can multiply so quickly, this can be used to simulate eons of time. If macroevolution is true, it shouldn’t be that inconceivable to see bacteria gain new genetic information. It also shouldn’t be too unreasonable to expect to see a single-cellular bacterium evolve into a multi-cellular bacterium. Why then has this never been observed to occur even in bacteria? Perhaps it’s because the types of changes that are needed to lead microevolution to macroevolution simply do not happen.If the definition of microevolution is limited to what has been observed, then it is a powerful testimony that life has not evolved. It is no surprise to creationists that animals become more specialized and often lose information when they ”microevolve’. This should be expected since our Creator created everything perfectly and now things are winding down.What counts as information increase?In this article, I’ve tried to stress new information. Why? In order to get the point across that new information must be information that the life form did not originally possess. Sometimes evolutionists like to give examples of mutations that do technically increase information in an organism. They are, however, the wrong types of information increase needed as evidence for molecules-to-man evolution. Such an example would be certain humans who possess an extra chromosome at position 21. I want to first point out that this is a harmful mutation which results in Down’s syndrome, [4] so it hardly counts as evidence for evolution. Also, while this might technically be an increase, it is not the type of increase we are looking for in order for macroevolution to be true. The human already had the information, it just was duplicated. This is not new information. It leads to a harmful mutation, and it certainly tells us nothing about the origin of the information.

The onus is on anyone who wishes to posit limits to the extent of that change to produce some hypothetical mechanism that might prevent it.

the randomness of mutation isn't an especially important concept in evolution

since the information here (in the IDers sense) is actually being created during the natural selection phase of the evolutionary process, and that phase of the process is not random at all.

Again, randman, simply saying this does not make it so. Evidence, randman, evidence.

What does "reflect order, intelligence, design" even mean.

Obviously the whole concept has a cause