Repeating yourself that it's obvious doesn't make it evidence.
No one is disputing that life is complicated, but the changes we observe from mutations and the winnowing we observe in form of selection are sufficient to account for the changes. If you want to add extra processes that design or build life you need to demonstrate that they are necessary and/or possible.
The unusual characteristics of the Earth certainly allow for the environment for life like ours to exist, but in a universe of over a hundred billion galaxies with over a hundred billion stars in each, the concept of unlikely seems to fade away.
Can you please define information and how you measure it in the context that you use?
Segments of DNA can be changed, duplicated, swapped and all of these can have an effect on fitness and function. So that is all that is needed to allow for evolution.
AGGACTAATG
AGGBCTAATG
AGGBCTAATAATG
AGGBCTAATAGTG
AGGACTAATAGTG
How do you measure the "information" changes in these generations of DNA sequences?
Nylonase is the best example because it is literally what Creationists seem to be calling impossible and it can be repeatedly observed in human time frames. We have genetic and fossil evidence for much larger scale developments, but they take a little more evidence to understand. Human lactose tolerance is an example.
New information is what i am after. That is, nylonase is information but not new. The reason it is not new is because it does not have any explanatory power for increased complexity and introducing truly novel function.
It is not difficult - enzymes around us have high specificity, usually log-fold for preferred substrates. This is the general observation we have. Nylonase is a pre-existing complex enzyme that has activity for a substrate structurally similar to synthetic nylon. Mutations give a reduced specificity version of the enzyme. That is not an increase in new information of benefit. That is more like genetic entropy some have postulated.
The example most people use is of Lenski's experiments and that is 95% of the time presented in a highly deceptive manner.
I know well the theory of how random mutations and natural selection produces adaptive changes and we see this in practice. However every example i have seen is a loss of information which means the evidence for this process producing increased complexity (think unicellular to multicellular multi-organ system organisms) is inferred, extrapolated, assumed. It then comes down to arguments from homology which is antecedent fallacy all over again.
The evolution might posit that nylonase is a step-wise fashion towards a duplication then increase in specificity towards nylon with a version retaining specificity towards the pre-existing substrate, but even then there us no mechanism described to account for the origin of that first enzyme - you are still using pre-existing information already at many bits of complexity, beyond what chance would suggest probable.
A stepwise amino acid sequence shoeing benegit at each stage to achieve something as fundamental to life as ATPase would be impressive and convincing evidence.
But as Behe successfully predicted, the limit if evolution really only is a very few number of amino acid changes due to the deleterious effects that pervade getting from one beneficial protein step-wise to another in the timeframes, generation times, mutation rates and other considerations. In fact some evolutionary studies have looked at homologous sequences and determined many routes of mutation have this struggle to achieve - i.e. get through severely deleterious mutations to get from one sequence to the next inter-organism (see publications from Thornton).
