Hoping to get scientific information or even simple logic from AIG is a doomed enterprise. The claim that a mutation can only remove information is an utterly bizarre one, since the same mutation in reverse would add the information using the new creature as its starting point. It is true that most mutations are neutral, some are very harmful, a small number are slightly harmful, and a small number are slightly beneficial. Mathematical analysis has shown that a low probability of beneficial mutation, combined with a low probability of beneficial mutations fixing in the genepool (due to the scattergun "luck" operation of natural selection) can still account for the observed DNA diversity.
Doomed? Not so. There are more than enough credentialed scientists affiliated with AiG. Because they don't interpret the evidence the same way you do does not mean they are illogical or non-scientific. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
The claim that a mutation can only remove information is an utterly bizarre one...
It doesn't appear to be very bizarre to me nor to a host of others. As far as AiG is concerned:
Answers in Genesis has always believed that ‘new information’ cannot arise by natural processes — It can only be explained by a Creator who pre-programmed specific traits in the genetic codes of all living things. See also Information: A modern scientific design argument. This particular skeptic believes that he has found an example of ‘new information’ arising by mutations and natural selection. Could he be correct? …