Should we be De-Evolving?

This has been brought up ooodles of times, SEVEN.To show that the assertions are correct you will have to start by defining information. There are threads for that.You could add to:
Complex Specified Information (CSI)
CSI and Evolution
CSI and DesignWithout that definition there is no meaning to what you have asserted.There is, of course, a formal definition of "information" as given in information theory. However, using that information it is easy to show that mutations can increase information.In addition, there is a bit of a logical problem with your assertion.If a mutation happens that is by your definition (whatever it is) and it is a loss of information then a mutation that sets the gennome back to where it was is, by your definition (whatever it is) a gain in information.So a mutation that removes a base pair you might define as a loss but a base pair can be added by a mutation for example.Would you care to elaborate on what the heck you and your source is talking about. Again I suggest adding it to one of the above threads.

It doesn't matter why animals are sometimes homosexual. The point is you said they aren't.The fact is they sometimes are.All of your ideas about what animals are turn out to be wrong. Wisdom and age may very well not correlate well. However, in general, there is some correlation between knowledge and age. Unfortunately not always but most learn things as time goes by.It is impossible for anyone to know it all. It certainly is impossible for anyone to learn everything in the first couple of decades of their life. There is, as noted, no shame in ignorance; we all are in many,many areas.You have now had an opportunity to learn. Your understandings of the natural world are not all correct.

Don't accept too much too quickly. Turn it over in your head a lot. Think about it a lot: can you find something that feels wrong or doesn't make sense to you? Decide, for yourself, why you will tentatively accept something as reasonable to take as right.