Even Behe would not agree that every case of evolution results in a loss of genetic information.
Besides thousands of examples in biology (simplest of which are many forms of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, often stemming from evolution of a novel gene without any other change or loss of functionality), Behe himself cites the example of malarial evolution - in which, however you turn it, new functionality (specific resistance to chloroquine) has evolved without any “loss of genetic information”.
You also repeat the old creationist canard, this time in truly ludicrous formulation of “fruit flies never became dogs”. Of course, they can't - they can only evolve slowly, with small stepwise changes. Even under significant pressure, they will “still look like fruit flies” to laypeople for a long time - no matter how profound the genetic changes.
You seem to have a very strange idea of what evolution is and what it entails.
And finally, I just ran into a truly nice example that shows evolution of things that Behe flatly says are impossible - evolution of an integral membrane ion channel protein complex (involving three subunits, that associate through protein-protein interactions), from completely random sequence. The protein did not evolve from other proteins, but arose through recombination of a RNA-coding gene, a stretch of noncoding DNA, and some inserted random nucleotides.
The details can be seen here:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/05/on_the_evolutio_1.html#more
mmm yes, Panda’sthumb is such a bastion of intellectual honesty- Let’s do send peopel there- After all, it’s not like they haven’t been caught in lie after lie [Sarcasm]
Here again is what Behe stated in his book:
““If two mutations have to occur before there is a net beneficial effect — if an intermediate state is harmful, or less fit than the starting state — then there is already a big evolutionary problem.”
Did he state it was impossible? NO!
Here’s what the quote you said claims- Again, it shoul;dn’t have to be pointed out, but apparently you fail to critically and objectively evaluate the info you wish to beleive in is being dishonest
“And finally, I just ran into a truly nice example that shows evolution of things that Behe flatly says are impossible “
BIG LIE JS- How abotu bringign some intellectually HONEST points to hte table eh? Not itnerested in your links ot sites liek Panda’sthumb which has exposed as liars time and time again, and as biased agendists wirth nothign but an ax to grind agaisnt ID.