Jim H says > Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time," while only 61% of the public agrees, <

So this is science now? Come up with a belief the human race has never seen, that also contradicts observable, repeatable, scientific fact, and if x% of scientists believe in it, that makes it science anyway? Please cite where that definition of science exists.

> That means that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution. <

Sorry but their profession of faith in it doesn't make it science.

Secondly no scientists need to believe that populations of fish of the past are their ancestors to do their job. They also know how hateful evolutionists will get, smearing reputations, attacking your funding, and even getting you fired, so of course when asked most scientists will say "yeah, sure, I believe in it" - all so they can go back to doing actual science in peace.

> That is not science. it is commentary and did not belong in a science class. <

Ironic since your only support of the fish to man evolution is the commentary from scientists that claim to also believe in it.

Here's what is science: It's observable, repeatable, biological, scientific fact: that no matter how many generations go by over the entire existence of the human race, ALL populations of: fish remain fish, reptiles remain reptiles, birds remain birds, viruses remain viruses, amphibians remain amphibians, and so on.

What is it you have against this observable, repeatable, biological, scientific fact?

Why do you think the beliefs of evolutionists nullify what IS observable, repeatable, biological scientific fact?