It is actually a law...
A semantic distinction, but if it makes you feel better, I'll rephrase: We can add biogenesis to the list of scientific theories and law that you do not understand.
This is not new information... This is Duplication (making more of the same genes).
But of course, if you have an organism with 10 genes, and duplication leads to its offspring having 12 genes, then it has more genes. These extra genes then have much more room to mutate without harming the organism. For instance, in an organism with a single copy of a gene vital to the operation of the eye, that gene cannot mutate without being harmful to the creature that possess it. In an organism with two copies of that gene, however, the mutation of only one of the copies might lead to an improvement in the creature. So, in the example above, the 2 extra genes could, over time, both mutate to perform different functions within the creature. The creature's genome would not have lost information, as the information the genes originally contained would still exist in the first 10 genes. The genome, however, would then contain the new information coded for by the two extra, mutated genes. Thus, mutation would have added information to the genome.
So the LAW of Biogenesis says there was an exception at the beginning of time and life sprang from non-life, but after that life can only come from life?
No, the LAW of biogenesis says that complex, mulitcellular life doesn't spring into being fully formed from nothing. It says nothing about how extremely simple, rudimentary forms of single-celled life, or even of life so primitive it would not even have a cell, got going. It also has nothing to do with evolution, except to make it more likely, as species have to change and appear somehow, rather than just springing into being fully formed, which biogenesis would not allow.
What proof? Has there been a documented change of a dog into a new species? That is what evolution is!!!!
No, that will be one example of evolution, if and when it occurs. As for the proof, that would be the fossil record and all of the experiments described in the articles I referenced, that you refuse to read about or to properly understand.
So you would have to have some half fish half bird (or some other thing like that) in the fossil record. Eventually, according to you, gradual changes have turned something into a new species. We should find the midpoint of the two animals in the fossil record.
No, you wouldn't. This is an argument based on the Great Chain of Being, which is the religious theory that evolution replaced. We do, however, find many fossils that contain features of both earlier and later creatures believed to be related to it, which is exactly what the theory of evolution predicts.
Wow they (and you) have great logic and are clearly unbiased...
Exactly! We believe that, if something can be shown to be true in a lab, repeatedly, then it is in fact true. You believe that if something can be shown to be true, in a lab, repeatedly, then it is . . . what, if it contradicts your pre-expectations? An illusion created by the devil? I don't know.