dmcg - sorry, but I,m not sure that I grasped the question in your post ,so the following may miss the mark.
I am referring to the limits of genetic information. certainly the child will not be identical to the father , but the genetic information obviously is not cloning, but within the gene pool [if that's the right term] there will be variation ,even to the extent of a complete colour change very occasionally . but there are limits, ie beyond the organism concerned. to insist that new information can arise , beyond the limits of the organism is purely philosophically driven if there are not proven instances to cite. presumably the theory, is that, given enough millennia todays child could be the distant ancestor of a completely different creature via countless imperceptable changes!? either way unproven, so a faith position.

I am not qualified, jack, to gainsay the technical details of the sun's workings but I see nothing amiss in God forming a fully functioning sun, the composition of which being exactly right for it's stability and usefulness to the earth. this is not deception, because he has told us when he made it...ie day 4 of creation week.
btw - what age was adam when God formed him ?. and what age did he appear to be, by looking at him ?.
answer- one day on the first,   and we can only guess at the second.

steve - I would not know if jack is talking tripe, only that you did not validate that opinion by saying why.

re jack to bill....dawkins is not a working scientist either..he,s a member of an evolutionist propaganda group!

20 times, bill. who's counting.
I am upfront on my presuppositions. you don't admit or recognize yours. even gould said that the idea of a completely impartial scientist is self serving myth.
I am offering specific evidence, like soft tissue etc in dino bone, and you continue to claim authority because most scientists subscribe to the same belief. that proves nothing except a lot of people believe the same thing.