"Somebody explain to me how "probably" or "resonable to suggest" and "many similarities" constitute scientific evidence that human beings evolved from FISH!"
Scientific evidence is never certain. Scientific theories are never perfect. This is the nature of science. Newton's law of gravity was pretty darn good for hundreds of years but Einstien came along and found something that Newton missed and improved the equations a bit. Certainly someone else will come along and do the same with Einstien's equations. Same thing is true with the various theories explaining how life and mankind came to be. Just because science cannot make the leap from complete ignorance to a perfect a theory without misteps and approximations along the way doesn't mean that it is not a very useful way of trying to understand our world. God gave us our brains, we should never be afraid to use them. God isn't afraid of truth, why should we be?
Having said that I doubt it is possible to pass judegement, one way or the other, regarding the strength of the scientific evidence of the theory under discussion by just reading a short newspaper article. In any case, I didn't get the impression from the article that the researchers were making over-the-top statements about the strength of their evidence so therefore I don't really see the problem.
This is my point exactly. Scientific evidence is considered by most as absolute proof, when in fact the equations keep changing. Darwinism is considered science, so therefore people believe it must be an indisputable truth. I was first introduced to Darwinism in a middle school science class. No alternative "theory" was allowed to be discussed.
Natural selection cannot explain the existance of mankind. Generational variations in the genetics of lifeforms, cross-breeding, and environmental adaptation cannot explain the leap from single-celled organisms to human beings.