If you have a string and apply some change to it you have new information. The original information may be lost but after the change occurs you have new information.
Are you sure you don't mix up two different information concepts (Shannon and Kolmogorov-Chaitin)? It's a mistake that's very common among creationists. As well as their equating information with meaning.
Here you can read more about this.
And, a dinosaur with feathers is a dinosaur.
A dinosaur with bird-like features ;)
The problem is you seem to think that these categories (dinosaur, bird) are somehow fixed with sharp boundaries. But this is not the case. You have a population that changes over time and somehow you have to subdivide this continuum. Now where do you draw the line? This can be as arbitrary as determining at which wavelength green ends and blue begins.
No, you have changed information. It hasn't introduced something brand new.
If I have a pie and I cut a piece of the pie, the pie has changed, but it hasn't become something else. If I have a crayon, and the sun melts it, the basic components are still there and it is still a crayon. To have an ape turn into a human you would have to introduce human genomes into the system of the ape. You do not have that with random mutation (and, I would argue it wouldn't work if you did it in a laboratory since humans and apes do not share offspring.).