You've made a personable attack but offer no proof or concrete evidence of your premise. Are you saying that genetic evidence says that species have changed from one species into another through the addition of genetic information or are you saying that there has been changes within the boundaries of given species? What form of change? Mutations? Specification at the cost of a reduction of genetic information? That there is adaptation and change of form within the boundaries of a kind is not at question. The only question and where is your proof is that you seem to be stating as known fact that there is absolute genetic proof that one kind has changed into another through the addition of continually more complex genetic information. I would appreciate for you to please support your position with facts rather than nonproductive insults.
Species have changed. The fossil record traces this quite clearly. Speciation has been observed today. And genetic comparisons trace the route and origin of species quite clearly. Your poroblem is that you don’t understand genetics, nor do you understand evolution. You are citing creationist talking points which are largely of their own derivation. It is an observed fact that species have and do change over time. It is an observed fact that every generation of every living thing has mutatations, including humans. The condition of what you call “the addition of continually more complex genetic information” is an obfuscation. Evolution does not specify the addition or subtraction of genetic information. Your question implies a nonsensical point. The concept of “information” is purely an abstraction or metaphor created by us. The evidence is that the genetics of living things have gone through specific, documented changes over time. It doesn’t matter if it has added or substrated what we artificially call genetic information.
And my original post has no personal attacks. Your ignorance of the subject, and science in general, is displayed clearly in your post. And it is no insult to say reality trump superstition, nor that the minority of Christians who literally interpret the Bible are wrong based on physical evidence and are uncomfortable, to say the least, that their world view is erroneous.