Mutations Cannot Produce the Type of Change Necessary for Darwinian Evolution

Just to be clear, I posit that mutations, which are changes in the sequence of DNA due to errors in replication or repair, cannot produce the information-adding change necessary for Darwinian evolution (macro-evolution). I do not simply call it evolution because evolution can be defined as simply change over time which no rational person would doubt. The idea, though, that all life stems from a common ancestor, branching out into something like Darwin's tree of life, is definitely not supported by any substantiating evidence. Genetic mutations are hailed to be the great mechanism for change, yet all the examples cited as evidence do not show the type of change necessary. Migration, genetic drift and natural selection are all things which have been demonstrably verified; all dogs probably descended from a common ancestor: a dog. But to say all animals descended from a common ancestor requires the type of change that adds new and larger amounts of information. Mutations come in the form of random letter changes, inversions, duplications and deletions. None of these types of changes can produce the type of new information required for macro-evolution. Lets look at some commonly cited examples of evolution in action via mutations: 1.) Sickle cell anemia: confers a resistance to the malaria parasite by producing deformed hemoglobin molecules. (http://creation.com...) 2.) Aerobic citrate digestion by bacteria: this involves the loss of control of the normal anaerobic citrate digestion. (http://creation.com...) 3.) Nylon digestion by bacteria: this involves a loss of substrate specificity in one enzyme contained on an extra chromosomal plasmid (http://creation.com...) 4.) Antibiotic resistance of bacteria: in the case where resistance is due to mutation, this involves a rearranging or deleting of information resulting in a change in which the antibiotic is not able to be transported into the bacteria or in which the antibiotic is not able to bind and consequently kill the bacteria. (http://creation.com...) All of the above commonly cited example of mutational change are all examples of a scrambling or deleting of genetic information. These examples do not exhibit the type of change necessary for macro-evolution. I challenge you to provide examples or evidence of mutational changes which increase genetic information. Recombination, random letter changes, inversions, duplications or deletions do not count as they are not mechanisms for introducing new genetic information. Mutations can produce new alleles (variant forms of a gene) and certainly add variety. However, Darwinian evolution requires the generation of new information to build new, complex, interdependent biochemical pathways. Introducing randomized errors into the genome, whether it be recombination or otherwise, is not conducive to macro-evolution, but in fact demonstrates the true nature of mutations: they are degenerating and deleterious. Remember, new traits or functions do not count as new information because the examples studied always show a degradation or scrambling of information, not an adding of information.