[BroJoeK]

wbarmy: "And that is the point.
They are non-viable due to the loss of information in the genes."

But your term, "loss of information" is not the problem, since DNA both gains and loses data in response to changing environments.
Some examples come easily to mind:

• High in the Himalayas and Andes mountains humans have evolved new biological mechanisms for survival in thinner atmospheres.
  These adaptions are not the same -- indeed, it's said Tibetans do better at high altitudes than Andeans -- but they both clearly show a DNA response to more challenging environments.

• In Africa, people have evolved biological mechanisms to defend against the scourge of malaria.
  These changes often result in cycle-cell anemia amongst those who have them.
  So, in no sense did their DNA "lose" information, it's just that the information "gained" (protection against malaria) came at the price of potential disease -- cycle-cell anemia.

• In much of northern Europe, people evolved biological mechanisms which allow them to digest cows-milk well beyond their childhood years.
  In other parts of the world, they have no such mechanisms and so are classified as "lactose intolerant".

Point is: in each case, you can say that DNA information was "gained", evolving to adapt to different environments.
Yes, sometimes at the cost of future disease (i.e., cycle cell anemia), but certainly in no sense an "information loss".

wbarmy: "The loss of information in all of the species you were talking about shows that evolution, the gaining of information for a new species, is not occurring.
All of the examples you used are devolving, becoming less than what their ancestors were."

Total rubbish.
In fact, the only "loss of information" in evolution is data no longer required for survival -- for one example, whales over time losing their legs.
At the same time, other necessary information was "gained" -- in that same example, whales' front legs becoming flippers.

In reality DNA "lost" or "gained" nothing, but DNA did change to allow better survival in new environments.

wbarmy: "Because they all started with the same genetic information, a loss of some of that information still allows them to occasionally be bred.
However, they are not becoming a new specie in the manner that evolutionists are trying to push."

DNA often changes to permit better survival, with or without information "loss" or "gain".
The difference between breeds (which readily interbreed) and sub-species, species, genera, orders & families (which increasingly cannot) is simply the long-term accumulation of differences in their DNAs.

[wbarmy]

The DNA never “changed”, the information was already there in those situations you described. Those without that information died or failed to breed leaving the ones with the information to reproduce. Mosquitoes who survived DDT reproduced, those who did not have that specific information did not.

Bacteria resistant to antibiotics survive and reproduce, those that are not, do not. Again, no information gain.

But successive generations can eventually breed information totally out of the gene pool, and that is what I mean by loss of information.

All humans came from an original source, with all of the genes for everything, but successive generations bred the gene out, i.e. no red hair in pure African groupings.

There is no case of information being gained through mutations, except bad information.

As for the whales, show me the genetic information gained. All you have is fossils and fossils do not tell you who their ancestors were.