William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[Esquilax]

The problem here is that we're allowing these guys to argue from vague, ill-defined analogies, rather than anything real. "Information" is a conceptual label placed upon predictable patterns, not an objective feature existing within DNA. When YGNinja scoffs and says we've never observed an increase in information, all he's really saying is that something he imagines- and doesn't really know much about, let's be honest- hasn't increased because in his self-serving, circuitous little mind, something isn't new if it's a copy of something pre-existing that has been altered to contain features not present in the original.

The issue, as I've pointed out before, is the arbitrary way "new information" is being defined, so that it doesn't mean new information unless it literally pops into existence from nowhere. If it's in any way based on previous genetics- which is the way mutation actually works- then he's just going to assert that it's not new information, even if it's a whole genetic sequence that didn't exist in one organism, but does in its descendant.

If we were actually discussing something tangible, like whether new genetic material can be produced through the standard means- which is the conversation we should actually be having, as it's the thing under discussion- then we've already won. But theists don't like limiting their discussions to things that are real: that precludes god entirely.