To give a more complete look at the “Achilles Heels” book, which I assume is similar to the the coming video, I will give a brief synopsis. The book is written by nine PhD scientists, in the fields of Plant Physiology, Marine Biology, Physical Chemistry, Geology, Mechanical Engineering, Experimental Nuclear Physics, Physics, Agronomy, Engineering. It is edited by a medical doctor (MB., B.S.) I understand that in the video, more scientists (up to 15) have been added into the mix.
The topics include Natural Selection, Genetics, Origin of Life, Fossil Record, Geologic Record, Radiometric Dating, Cosmology, Ethics and Morality. There is a panorama of issues within the larger issue of evolution as “microbes to microbiologists”. Occasionally they also point out some of the older creationist arguments which are no longer held on to, and which creationists should not use, and anti-creationists should not attempt to debunk, as they are “straw-men” arguments.
Apparently they have a new production (230 pages) called Busting Myths, which highlights 30 creationist scientists.
On their website, there is also an extensive list of “false arguments” that creationists should no longer use, and they spend some time debating with Kent Hovind about some of these arguments that should not be used. Some of this is because of semantics, some of this because of inconclusive data, and some of this because of revised interpretations of fossils or other data. http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use
Getting back to Ken Poole’s comment, he suggests that gene duplication is “something new”. However, from an information point of view, it is not new. While using the blueprint for one boat to build another would result in a “new” boat, it would not result in a new design. Something new, would be equivalent I think, to having a blueprint replicate itself, and in the process, change itself so that instead of producing a boat, it now produced a boat on wheels. Whether there is one copy of the gene code, or two, or four, does not result in a significant change in overall information, although it allows for more diversity in the population, given the possibility of additional recessive genes. The source for new information would be mutations, except that it must be demonstrated that the new information is additional, not mere revision of existing stuff, such as activation or deactivation, and not only that it is possible, but that it must have happened, and that it is beneficial, and not neutral or deleterious, nor merely temporarily beneficial with as many or more deleterious side effects.
So we would expect beneficial mutations to produce the ability to see better, rather than worse, to run faster, rather than slower, to hear with the acuity of dogs, rather than the deafness of old people, to live longer lives (without medical interference), rather than die younger. And these beneficial changes would need to occur without harmful side effects, such as a person who could run faster dying younger, or a person who could see much better, but losing long-term memory.
Gene duplication certainly does not debunk the lack of new information.