“So when will humans develp wings, a beak, or maybe alien traits since evolutionists claim that only fitter species survive?”
Fittest to their environment, Carry. We have various means of flight, we don’t need wings. We have hammer/chisels, don’t need beaks. We’re adapted to our environment, don’t need adaptations to Mars or Kronos.
“And since they've already claimed that we came from our less fit ancestor apes, then what is more fit than humans?”
Octopus eyes don’t have a blind spot.
Gorillas are stronger.
Cheetahs are faster.
Depends on what’s needed for survival, eh?
"Aliens perhaps? So sorry, evolutionists, but your contradictions are exposed and your game is over even if you deny it.”
What contradiction?
“Claiming that animals turn into humans and explaining it by the survival of fitter species presupposes that humans will turn into a completely new and superior species than we are today.”
No, it doesn’t presuppose that, because i don’t think presuppose means what you think it does. Also, it doesn’t predict that. If we adapt more fully to the environments we make for ourselves, and just stay as humans for the entire future, that would fit with actual evolution.
No contradiction.
“So when will that be and what will that entail?”
Now you’re shifting into speculative science fiction. Outer Limits did that. Any number of movies. Some computer games. We won’t know until it happens.
“How anyone can adopt such a ludicrous and impossible notion that apes breed anything but apes & humans breed anything but humans”
From the evidence. You don’ t like it, you can hold your breath until the cows come home for all of us.
“The theory of evolution is more impossible”
More impossible? Impossible is kind of binary. Possible can be a spectrum. So ‘less possible than’ would work.
More impossible would be like more unique.
“ It would probably have been laughed out of science fiction books before the 19th century.”
Okay. You’re saying we need widespread indoor plumbing to grasp evolution.
“That shows that humans are indeed in a state of decay,”
Now, now, you didn’t SHOW that it actually WAS laughed out, just asserted, without evidence, that it would have been, if science fiction had included it BEFORE THE INVENTION OF SCIENCE FICTION (typically held to be a 19th century invention).