No, only that they "add specific information" (whatever that is).
> (this has been
> observed in the field, but since he is obviously a creationist and it
> was observational evidence, it probably doesn't count)
Actually, he discounts all these because of a rather unorthodox
and, as far as I can see, inconsistent application of measures
of "information".
> and does he
> deny that a mutation is new information?
Yes. However, he has written that it might be possible for a mutation
to generate new information. I have not seen him furnish any examples
of such -- even hypothetical ones -- so it's hard to understand what he
means. I have asked others who've read his book the same question.
I think we'll have to wait until either Kevin or Art get their hands on
copies of the book.
Brian previously referenced an article by Spetner at:
http://members.xoom.com/torahscience/evol1.htm
It's very telling.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tikeda@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)