There is NO scientific evidence to show that new information has arisen by mutaions in a genome. And new information cannot arise out of nowhere, (that's a scientific law) That shows that macro-evolution is IMPOSSIBLE.
No, it doesn't. It doesn't show anything at all. No one is agreeing with you that new information can arise through mutations, and they gave you a great example in the random number generator.
In the end, though, all I see is a lot of fuss by creationists about definitions. Ok, great, don't call it new information. Say it arose from old information, so it doesn't count as new information. You can have your definition, which no one agrees with. Nonetheless, mutations occur and have been seen to occur. Some mutations are beneficial, as you have pointed out.
As these beneficial mutations accumulate, what begins as micro-evolution turns into macro-evolution. Darwin, 150 years ago, described the progress that leads from a jointed crab leg to a claw, and he gave examples of each step in nature. He described the step-by-step progress from light-sensitive cells to a full-fledged eye with a lens, and he gave examples of each step in nature. All of those steps are small enough to be possible through beneficial mutations.
So, a claw can develop from a leg by accumulated beneficial mutations, which you agree occur. An eye can develop from a few light-sensitive cells through beneficial mutations, which you agree occur. Now I grant you your definition. No new information was gained in the process from leg to claw and from light spot to eye. Nonetheless, such progress is macro-evolution, so your information hypothesis definitely does not show that macro-evolution is impossible.
™ Version 4.2