Human Gland Probably Evolved From Gills

King's College London via ScienceDaily ^ | 2004-12-07 | Anonymous

[AQGeiger]

She probably just had some sort of branchial fistulas or sinuses, and wanted to make the condition sound cool.

[clyde asbury]

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."
Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

Thanks for the quotes, shubi. That one needs to be shouted.

[Jorge]

Once it was apes, then aardvarks and now fish. There's no telling what else we "evolved" from. LOL! The lengths people go to to defy God is hilarious!

Thank you from and x-evolutionist.
I am embarassed to say I once believed this sort of nonsense.
Until Christ turned the light on for me!

[calex59]

In the womb, for a short time, we all have gills.

This is a myth and was started back in 1890 and was disproven a few years later when the guy who said he ran the experiments admitted he lied about his evidence. Didn't matter to the schools though. They kept right on teaching. Humans embryos never have gills or tails as far as that goes. Proven fact not opinion.

[PatrickHenry]

"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."

That goes back to Galileo:
Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany. Galileo's opinion about science/scripture conflicts.

It is now the Pope's position: The Pope's 1996 statement on evolution. Excerpt:

It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Wait, I thought we evolved from apes. Now the evolutionists are saying fish, huh? Sounds like alot of horse*bleep* to me.

Shouldn't you know something about the theory of evolution before you ridicule it?

[Gondring]

Uh, fish are further back. Apes also have parathyroids, don't they?

[spinestein]

HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA. Good one....... Hey, wait a minute.... That actually makes sense.

[Gondring]

It's a hypothesis, or perhaps the current prevailing theory. What's wrong with that?

[grey_whiskers]

That's what we were told in high school biology, anyway.

"Ontogony recapitulates philogeny"
"Sure, but decent folks don't admit it."

(From one of Keith Laumer's Retief novels...)

[clyde asbury]

This is a myth and was started back in 1890 and was disproven a few years later when the guy who said he ran the experiments admitted he lied about his evidence. Didn't matter to the schools though. They kept right on teaching.

I don't doubt you. I posted first, then googled, then posted again.

[somemoreequalthanothers]

A question; the human infant can not fend for itself for many years after birth. Did the parent evolve before the child?

[SeeRushToldU_So]

BS

[calex59]

Theory of evolution explains nothing. There is no proof of evolution as a matter of fact all the proof is against evolution which is why evolution was once called darwinism, then went to neo-darwinism and now is called "puntuated equilibrium", better known as the "hopeful monster" theory. These new theories were brought about to explain why there are no transitional species found in the fosil records. I do not know if we were created by God or not, but I do know this after years of study, evolution is not real and has never been proven so. No proof, none. Evolutionists, the scientists, not amatuers, say things like, we know evolution is a fact, we just haven't proven it yet. Now there is a scientific statement if I ever heard one.

[grey_whiskers]

In the womb, for a short time, we all have gills. Are they functional?

[cyborg]

I thought these folks would be distracted with destroying christmas creches.

[clyde asbury]

Are they functional?

Hey, I just repeated what Ms. Brown told us. My mistake.

But.

They'd have to be. Not much air in the womb.

[spinestein]

" Somebody explain to me how "probably" or "resonable to suggest" and "many similarities" constitute scientific evidence that human beings evolved from FISH! "

These terms are the jargon of scientific methodology and have a more "precise" meaning than when used in casual conversation.

For example: "reasonable to suggest" means that the person evaluating the data can justify his conclusions based on the validity of the assumptions and the soundness of the experimental process in generating the data.

[grey_whiskers]

Just goes to show how great God is. He created reusable code before man created the computer.

Think of classes, inheritance...

A rather nifty methodology, too bad I don't actually code in Java!

Full Disclosure: If you will permit such a mixed metaphor, there is even room for 'garbage collection'--just look at the Darwin awards; "God taking out the garbage" ;-)!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

 

"probably evolved "

 

"suggest"

 

"it is reasonable to suggest"

 

"This interpretation ..."

 

 "contain many similarities"

 

"suggests"

 

Aahhhh... the language of hard scientific proof resonates with

truthfulness. Pity those poor creationists who just believe what

they want to believe!