I never said that. I said it can be fine tuning.
A phrase with no meaning in biology or informatics. What you seem to be doing is actually conceding the point but insisting we change the words to hide the fact.
There are mutations with beneficial effects which do not cause a net loss in information/functional information, we can call this fine tuning if you like, it doesn't change what it is and it doesn't stop the website you directed us to from being wrong to use such an instance as an example of a loss of information.
They do in vast majority of cases. Even if they don't. Even if they just damage the structure slightly, next few mutations will damage it enough to destroy the function.
You aren't answering the question, the question wasn't, 'Do you think most mutations are detrimental?' It was "If a mutation causes no change in function then please tell me how you measure the change in information involved and determine it to be a net loss?".
When your answer doesn't even make grammatical sense in the context of the question, as yours fails to, then you probably aren't answering the right question.
If you just don't know how you would measure it then why not just say so?
A new house is an ideal. If you throw a rock at it and damage it, it lost some of it structure.
Is this a house you are buying furnished? Let me tell you, my house was a show house when I bought it, an ideal home as it were, and it distinctly benefited from my changing some of the light shades and curtains, yet it is as structurally sound and has all the same lighting and window blocking functionality of before the changes.
TTFN,
WK