Debate: is god true?
Side: no ,god is not true

"Mutations are the loss of information"no.mutations are the result of imperfect DNA copying, resulting in genetic variation"a : a relatively permanent change in hereditary material involving either a physical change in chromosome relations or a biochemical change in the codons that make up genes; also : the process of producing a mutation"from merriam websternote how it says 'change'. not 'downgrade'it seems the only time you forget to quote the dictionary is when it disagrees with you...and it is this, among other, mechanisms of genetic diversification that lead to survival of the fittest, pressuring organisms to change over time in the process known as evolution."Then you have Nicholas Steno who rendered a "drawing" of an extant shark"you are using a 17th century scientist to prove your point?talk about out-dated evidenceand the "holes in a shell"is called evidence of interactionwhich is used after the discovery of more substantial fossilslike thishttp://images.suite101.com/897376_com_102_0803.jpg "Here I will find evidence for you. This is an article about a fossilized "flying insect" which had no wings"how does this prove that there were flying animals before land animals?and I actually believe that there is significant evidence for a massive flood- I did not question that aspect."There are too many unknowns here"actually, the orientation of the zircon molecules in uranium lead dating will give away any important disturbance, so when they are disturbed, it is visible. http://geology.about.com/od/geotime_dating/a/uraniumlead.htm " in case of the discovery of a mermaid-like chimeric creature, that even more pronounced convergence of modular units can occur than previously supposed?"So, you are basing an argument off of theoretical evidence?This is just ridiculousHere is a link to the tree of life. It shows the relation between a mind-boggling number of speciesthe fact that no chimeric creature has been found suggests that fish and homo sapiens diverged very early on: were we to find a mermaid, it means that fish and homo sapiens diverged later on.http://itol.embl.de/itol.cgi"the existence of less-extreme chimeric creatures, notably ‘fossil whales’, argues strongly against a common evolutionary ancestry of living things."That is not how divergence works.as you go up the evolutionary ladder, species get more and more different from each other.Using the example of people and fish: you will not find a mermaid fossil because every species did not spontaneously diverge from each other.People came from apes who came from lemurs who came from rodents who came from primitive mammalia who came from reptilians who came from amphibians who came from fish.land-whales, which your article suggests would be ridiculous, is really the process by which a normal land mammal slowly, over time, became aquatic.it did not, as your article suggests, a chimera.the other interesting aspect your article stated was that evolution was not in a consistently whale-based direction.I should find this obvious to any person who understands evolution.there is no end goal for evolution: there is an evolutionary pressure to change.these changes are random, and any direction they took would be because of these pressures to survive.each 'step' of evolution is its own species, not some half-way mark to becoming a whale.http://darwiniana.org/whale1.gifNo need for a chimera mermaid to explain the divergence directly between a human and a fish.and here is an article discussing LUCA, the last universal common ancestor: whose genome has been theorized.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18508609