changes in modern man

Well. let's see. to date, all humans still have:1) 2 eyes, 2 ears, a nose, a mouth, walk on 2 legs, have 2 arms, have creamy flesh with varying degress of hair, have either blue, brown or green eyes, a heart lungs, teeth, intestines, a liver, stomach, a respiratory endocrine, nervous, circulatory and reproduvtice systems, we sill only breed humans, we have the ability to speak, form complex analyses, rule over the animals and on and on and on.No human has yet:1) developed wings
2) Dropped an arm or a leg to change the species
3) Turned into another animal
4) Turned into a species superior to humans.But humans have; gotten more delusional in claiming that animals can change into humans, gotten more greedy, arrogant, and confused about history in the past several decades which proves that we are in a state of decay rather than evolving into a superior species.And lastly, for evolutionists: what superior species would humans be evolving into according to them? Gods? Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

WRONG again. The weak and the strong ALWAYS co-exist in every single species. They always have and always will. So that's another false claim from evolutionists. So try again. As a matter of fact,people of ancient times were far more intelligent than people of today becausw we rely on previous minds for all of our info today whereas they didn't have centuries of previous information to use for their calculations, understanding of mathematics and so forth. They figured it out themselves. The bible even describes the evaporation of water that scientists of the 20th century think they've cleverly figured out themselves. Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

First, one has to define "fit". In fact, it is a well-known fact that Darwin's opinions had a deep affect on the Nazi's in the mid-century by trying to define which human race is fitter than another. And we all know what that led to.It is also untrue that people considered "less fit" than others can't have more children than those who are considered "fit". We still have deformed babies, even from couples considered "fit." In fact, one of Einsteins children was considered mentally retarded.So no, "fit" parents (whatever that means) DO NOT NECESSARILY BREED FIT OFFPSRING. Their offspring are just as capable of being born with defects and subject to disease and early death as anyone else's are.So even though your response was considerate and respectful, it's still incorrect. Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

My analogy of the nazi's was showing precisely what happens when people try to play God and judge who's fit and who isn't. You are trying to do the same thing and are failing abysmally.By your definition of fit, you are claiming that only those who have many children are fit. That means that the Bedouins in the Middle east and the people in areas of the world who do nothing but stay at home and have sex with each other are more fit than anyone else in the world. That argument is not only LUDICROUS AND JUDGMENTAL, but unbelievably ignorant as well. So until anyone here is interested in being objective and rational, then further conversation about this won't be productive.Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

Sorry but that's incorrect. Whether one looks backwards, forwards or to current situations HE IS STILL MAKING A JUDGMENT ABOUT WHO'S FIT AND WHO ISN'T. One first needs to udnerstand that he needs CRITERIA on which to judge who is fit and who isn't. And by Chiroptera's statements, he judged that people who have more children than others to be fitter than others. THAT'S PLAYING GOD JUST LIKE THE NAZI'S DID, which is not only LUDICROUS AND JUDGMENTAL, but extremely ignorant as well. By your reasonin, then if a fit parent has 10 children and 3 of them die in a car accident, then the parent was unfit to begin with. So arguments made on false and ludicrous claims such as yours and his, aren't even worth responding to. Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

Oh, I can respond to them alright and I have. By your reasoning, then a fit parent who had 10 children and 3 of them die in a car accident, that makes the parent unfit. One can't have a rational conversation with someone who makes illogical statements such as that one.But I know one thing: the Nazis agreed with that type of reasoning. They had a program called Lebensborn where they encouraged even SS officials to breed with ANY Aryan woman, married or single, because they too thought that breeding as many children as they could perpetuated a superior race. And that delusional thinking came from darwin himself. So the theory of evolution is not only a lie but it brreeds arrogance that cannot be reasoned with, any more than one can reason with the Nazi's. Edited by Refpunk, : No reason given.

So you're saying that couples who opt not to have children are less fit than those who do nothing but have sex all day and breed children? You couldn't be further from the truth. Again, not only is that judgmental but your criteria for judging fitness is LUST AND LAZINESS. One cannot carry on a rational conversation with people who make such false, judgmental, and ludicrous claims such as these. I therefore will not stoop to this level of conversation with anyone because they're not capable of thinking rationally.