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

"This is what I said through replication the DNA loses information (amino acids). The mutation is a loss of genetic information, there is never a 'gain' in new information.""You can call it a change, but it's a change that loses information not gaining it."No. With all due respect, you obviously have never learned about mutations.a mutation can be either an addition, subtraction, or substitution of DNA.http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_03 "Survival of the fittest is different from evolution"the principles of Darwinian evolution are that1) One of the prime motives for all species is to reproduce and survive, passing on the genetic information of the species from generation to generation. When species do this they tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support.2) The lack of resources to nourish these individuals places pressure on the size of the species population, and the lack of resources means increased competition and as a consequence, some organisms will not survive.The organisms who die as a consequence of this competition were not totally random, Darwin found that those organisms more suited to their environment were more likely to survive.3) This resulted in the well known phrase survival of the fittest, where the organisms most suited to their environment had more chance of survival if the species falls upon hard times. (This phrase if often associated with Darwin, though on closer inspection Herbert Spencer puts the phrase in a more accurate historical context.)4) Those organisms who are better suited to their environment exhibit desirable characteristics, which is a consequence of their genome being more suitable to begin with.http://www.biology-online.org/2/10_natural_selection.htm So, not only is survival of the fittest related to evolution- it is key to evolution."That was from your source not mine"Yes: in the history section, not a modern scientist."You do realize this is a model right?"yes. real bones are fragile."They constructed it from the discovery of a tooth"no: the tooth was the first initial evidence of a megalodon.since then, we have found more substantial fossils including vertebrate, and have extrapolated the rest based on existing sharks"This is the evidence you support? How is 'art' more viable then eyewitness testimony?"because this "art", as you call it, was constructed based on the proportional dimensions of a complete shark jaw and vertebrate, with the missing parts superimposed based on the skeletal construction of modern sharks."They have very little evidence it even flew"other than1) its similar anatomy to primitive flying insects2) the fact that it left no tracks of walking, suggesting that it landed there3) its stance is similar to the mayfly, which flies"So in other words, a consistent environment."yes, a consistent environment makes the process "straight forward"."What about from catastrophic events"that would fall under the category of 'significant events'"this would definitely disrupt the time schedule"which would be visible as a mark in the zircon structure"All of these effects could "totally" disrupt the discordia"which would be visible as a mark in the zircon structureAnd there is none of the transitions in the fossil recordapes and humans divergedwe have found ape-human fossilsQED you are simply spewing garbageAccording to natural selection the weaker species are eliminatedno: natural selection says that, within a species, those with traits better suited to their environment will survive, while those without traits suited to their environment do not."This animal would have to slowly gain the attributes and characteristics of a whale."not necessarily.it may develop the ability to swimand then sleeker fur to swim fasterand then bigger feet to swim fasterand then a higher nose to breathe easierand slowly it develops so many accumulated traits, each one in their own right aiding the species survive, until it is no longer recognizable."So how would you suppose a land animal with half fins and half legs would eat or catch food (even evade a predator). Natural selection would tell us this animal would be eliminated. Even if you believe it was a whale with a leg and fin mixture. How would it do a good enough job of swimming to catch it's food""The fossil indicates that archaic whales swam by undulating their vertebral column, thus forcing their feet up and down in a way similar to modern otters. Their movements on land probably resembled those of sea lions to some degree, and involved protraction and retraction of the abducted limbs"I believe that answers your question.http://www.sciencemag.org/content/263/5144/210.abstract "We have to see intermediate forms, which we do not"funny, I did not think you would be able to say any more blatantly wrong things...here is an article discussing two important fossils of land whaleshttp://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5538/2239.abstract