[highimpact]

This is how evolutionists define science...

The human parathyroid gland, which regulates the level of calcium in the blood, probably evolved from the gills of fish, according to researchers from King's College London.

it is reasonable to suggest

experiments that show that the parathyroid glands of mice and chickens and the gills of zebrafish and dogfish contain many similarities.

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

[Gondring]

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

[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.

[beavus]

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

The similarities ARE the evidence. No one guaranteed you'd be convinced by it.

[Dimensio]

Are you suggesting that science should only use terms to denote absolute certainty, which is never the case in science, even when speaking of gravity?

[Avenger]

"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.

[Centurion2000]

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

Easy, the scientific method does not apply to evolution.

[Lulu]

When I took pre med at Loma Linda U., a Christian University, we dissected pig fetuses because they were so similar to human ones. Maybe that accounts for all the fat people in the U.S. today.