I'm not sure how I ended up here, or why I feel compelled to reply, but I just want to share an opinion outside of the normal echo chamber in which you might operate.

You are correct in your interpretation of DNA as a script. 'Functional' lengths of DNA are essentially genes and read much like the 1's and 0's of computer code, albeit as a four base code consisting of the nucleotides A T C G. Like a computer, your biological machinery can read this script and produce a desired product (protein, or functional RNA) from it.

When you're talking about the abiotic origin of life, well that's a tough nut to crack. The basis of the theory is that conditions on a primordial earth were such to generate the organic compounds and basic lipid constructs needed for life on earth. Anyways, that's not something I quite want to focus on.

Again, your interpretation of "breeds" is mostly correct. 'Genetic Data' can be lost and changed through mutation and evolution. Yes, "Breeds" of dog are done by inbreeding and making sure that each dog of that breed has the same set of genes.

I'm not a fan of how you focus on "genetic data loss" rather than "genetic data change". True, the events that lead to the formation of new genes are quite rare, i.e duplication give this a read but the addition of new genetic material is not the main driver for evolution or the generation of new species.

Your 1 step forward and 4 steps back is a powerful metaphor but an incorrect one. I assume you're a proponent for some interpretation of intelligent design, but all life (including humans) is filled with genetic information that has clearly not been optimized and sometimes works to our detriment, but isn't lost because it works "good enough" to allow us to reproduce.

A more apt metaphor would be like "1 step forward, a step to the left, a step to the right, and a step backward, but the one that took a step backward got hit by a train and didn't have kids. The two on the left and right are fine but the one in front got to the food first and is a bit healthier for it."

Genes typically change in small amounts over many generations. Yes, sometimes these changes will result in a loss of function for the gene (which is why it is advantageous to have multiple copies of a gene!), however sometimes you get a new or altered function for the gene. Other times changing a component of a gene will have no effect at all. This is how new species could be generated, through existing genetic machinery being altered combined with rare de novo genetic events. This works in tandem with natural selection. The key thing I want to pass onto you as someone who studies genetics is that most of the time it isn't "genetic loss", it's more like "genetic change".

I'd be happy to answer any questions you have as it seems you have done your best to educate yourself on the topic, however I don't think you can simply "toss" the observations made by thousands of scientists out the window because of a lightly founded conclusion. Contextually, "God created the birds and the fish and the bla bla bla" could still be true, as long as physical laws of the universe were established such that evolution would go down that road, besides the guy does know everything that will happen. If you believe the earth is 5000 years old however, there is nothing I can do.