Oh dear. Your source does not seem to understand what its talking about.
For example this bit -
A group of creatures might become more adapted to the cold, for example, by the elimination of those which don’t carry the genetic information to make thick fur. But that doesn’t explain the origin of the information to make thick fur.
What if I said that all the information to make everything is already there in the DNA? And that all of the required bits of information to create animal X are turned on within the code? So, for example, to create animal X, we need gene A to turn on, alongside C, F, H, I, L, O, etc. Because thats how it really works.
Naturally, such scrambling of information will often be harmful—thousands of hereditary diseases in people, for instance, are caused by just such inherited mutational defects. At best they may be neutral—having no effect on the outcome, or the expressed meaning of the code. Using English as an (admittedly limited) analogy, assume a message were transmitted saying ‘the enemy is now attacking’, which accidentally suffers a one-letter substitution changing it to ‘the enemy is not attacking’. The result is potentially disastrous, like a harmful mutation. Whereas a change to ‘tha enemy is now attacking’ would be neutral; a change, but not affecting the end result.
But using that analogy, the chances of a "disastrous" translation are ridiculously slim.
Besides, 1 in 20 (ballpark figure) people are estimated to suffer from genetic diseases. Thats hardly a negligible amount.
However, evolutionists believe that occasionally, a ‘good’ mutation will occur which will be favoured by selection and will allow that creature to progress along its evolutionary pathway to something completely different.
And this is where the language analogy draws short- DNA is a bunch of ons and offs. Language is not. So by occasionally, what it should mean is that half the time when a change occurs, it's a good one.
‘There!’ says the evolutionist. ‘A favourable mutation—evolution in action!’ However, it fails to make his case, because though beneficial to survival, it is still a defect—a loss or corruption of information. This is the very opposite of what evolutionists need to demonstrate real evolution.
Yet again, the source knows little. Information is not destroyed- it is turned off. If you are familiar with computer programming, think of it as being "commented out". It could always change back.
Also, a loss of information can cause bacterial antibiotic resistance, e.g. penicillin resistance in Staphylococcus can be due to a mutation causing a regulatory gene’s loss of control of production of penicillinase (an enzyme which destroys penicillin). The resulting overproduction of penicillinase increases resistance to penicillin. But in the wild (away from artificial environments swamped with penicillin), the Staphylococcus would be less ‘fit’ because it wastes resources producing heaps of unnecessary protein.
At which point the species as a whole would mutate to turn those genes off. The it would become a new strain of Staphylococcus.
I'm not going to investigate the source any further, it's quite evident where its heading, and where it's made its vital flaw- namely, not knowing how DNA actually works.
