Hot things become cold things with no intervention, but cold things never become hot for no apparent reason. Living things become dead things, always, but dead things never become living things.
Perhaps you should similarly
caveat that "dead things never become living things [for no apparent reason]", the reason would be due to chemical reactions driven by energy flow within the system.
As it relates to biology, the constant transferring of genes would not lead to an upgrade of information, but a steady, gradual decline.
This seems like a straw-man, if it were only the constant transfer of stable genes or the only mutations were losses then you might have a case, but as it is you are merely creating a nonsensical case to argue against.
"Ultimate corruption" may be the logical consequence of entropy but it doesn't mean that ther must be continuous corruption or only corruption of any specific open component system.
Merely recognising that entropy applies to both open and closed systems doesn't mean that claims that the 2LOT somehow bars either abiogenesis or the gain of 'information' are somehow supported.
What's wrong with that? Copying errors occur that lead to the steady degradation of information. Seriously, what's unfactual about that?
This assumes that there was some sort of original platonic message encoded in the DNA which is being diverged from. In the absence of such a platonic message it is pointless to speak about the degradation of information. Copying errors lead to a vast variety of different changes in the DNA and, by a number of measures, in the information content of the DNA.
Heterozygous becomes homozygous in the offspring and that's when people start dying
Why didn't the 100 adults with full blown SCA start dying before reaching reproductive age then? If you intentionally mess about the the figures beforehand to front load them to give you the answer you want then I doubt anyone is going to be impressed when you do in fact get that answer.
3. What do you mean by 'gene flow from other populations'? By population, do you mean a specific specie or a specific classification? IOW, lets take Darwins classic Finches as an example. Do you mean how one specie of Finches can effect another? Or do you mean how one type of bird can corrupt or benefit another?
Gene flow refers to the changes in genetic variance, and possibly variation, when members of the same species from another population or sub-population are introduced to a population. In the case of Darwin's finches it would be if the odd one or 2 finches from an island flew to other islands every generation. The islands the finches flew to might gain more varianc if the migrants can breed with the native populations.
To take your SCA example, if a group of scandinavians settled and interbred in an African population then they might increase the variance at the sickle cell locus.
TTFN,
WK