Think About IT: Can a Fish Become an Attorney?

It is often said that all mutations are bad, but this is not actually true. There are cases of beneficial mutations, but what is needed for evolution to make a fish into an attorney is not merely a beneficial mutation, but rather the creation of new information, and therein is the problem. Even advantageous mutations lose rather than add new information. Consider the following from http://creation.com/qa#bad_arguments:

1. Evolutionary theory requires some mutations to go ‘uphill’–to add information.
2. The mutations which we observe are generally neutral (they don’t change the information, or the ‘meaning’ in the code) or else they are informationally downhill–defects which lose/corrupt information.
3. The rare ‘beneficial’ mutations to which evolutionists cling, all appear to be like this wingless beetle–downhill changes, losses of information which, though they may give a survival advantage, are headed in precisely the wrong direction for evolution.

“All of our real-world experience, especially in the ‘information age,’ would indicate that to rely on accidental copying mistakes to generate real information is the stuff of wishful thinking by ‘true believers,’ not science.” ((http://creation.com/qa#bad_arguments accessed 11/26/11.))