"1)to get something an organism never had, not just modify or "turn off" or "turn on" an existing program its the mechanism for bacteria resistance not the fact that it becomes resistant.
You miss my point. The idea of applying information theory to the genome, to give weight to the argument that a lack of this information implies the inability of the genome to create novel functions and organs, is at best a red herring. Originally it was used by biologists as a visualization aid with no intention of literally applying it to the genome. We do not yet have enough information about what and how DNA actually works to start applying something like IT. The IDists and other creationists use it as a sword rather than as a scientific tool.
"Why is Safarti's 'information' better than any other 'information'?
"2) I don't think its better or worse, its just not new, such as Gadus morhua doesn't have the stickleback information for "armor" now if Gadus morhua develops armor it would be a far better case (against the new info claim/for macro) since the MECHANISM that created the change would be seeming nonexistent in Gadus morhua previously.(ie..no mechanism for armor like stuctures has ever been observed on Gadus morhua)
I thought we were discussing information? The mechanism is separate from the content is it not? Anyway, the point of the article is the large change in morphology with little change in gene with no new 'information' added.
"Why does a mutation only decrease information?
"3)mutations don't only decrease, (I believe he used corrupt) it can decrease, or change existing information, the trick is to have a mutation be a creative force of addition.
Mutations can and do add sections to a DNA sequence. This is an increase in 'information'
"Why are there 'simpler' organisms than humans with larger information bases for their complexity level?
"4) the observational informational base is, I think, moot. what is lacking (I believe)is the demonstration (not explanations of "suggested" possibilities) that whatever that base is, it can gain information.
Are you saying that forensic evidence does not count? Or that the myriad ways of increasing sequence length does not add information?