William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[Esquilax]

The mutations observed are almost exclusively negative or neutral.

Untrue: mutations run the gamut from negative to positive, of which we've seen plenty of all stripes. For example, following population isolation, Italian Wall Lizards have been observed to evolve entirely new valves in their digestive tracts to handle the new food sources they were forced to predate on in their new environment. Bacteria has been observed to evolve the ability to digest nylon where no other food is available, and some populations of rattlesnakes are evolving out their rattles, as warning their prey isn't a good way to catch food. You're simply wrong on this one.

Data is corrupted or deleted. Natural selection can act on it as much as it wants, the thing is only ever going to devolve. Whats more, you need a mechanism to increase the quantity of data. Mutation only changes existing data.

Nope. We've observed it adding genetic material and information too.

A human contains alot more data than a single cell, and you've no mechanism to explain how the genome can acquire such quantities of new data, even over billions of years.

Mutation is sufficient for this; new genetic information can be added, and there's plenty of reportage on this to prove it. I don't need a new mechanism: the old one works just fine.

Now, I've shown you mine, you show me yours: what is the mechanism that halts mutations, so that they don't accumulate to the point that we'd need to reclassify an organism?