Replies

As for "reasonable alternative sources" - why should anyone take any of them seriously unless and until you have some evidence for them? If you have some alternate theory,

That's an interesting shift of the obligation. The burden of proof for anyone claiming they have found a new species is to answer any and all reasonable objections to the claim. You continually equate the very reasonable objections I have stated with comparisons to the "seed from Mars" variety. It's an entirely reasonable question to ask, "when, where, and how was the so-called parent stock introduced?" "Can we be seeing the result of a dormant seed population?" "What is the difference between cousin, sibling, and parent DNA relationship and how are you sure parentage is the proper conclusion?" "What are the standards for discerning whether a new species has been observed or an old species discovered? How long must we go between discoveries, in other words, before we determine that there's nothing new?" "How often does genetic fraud occur in the research world?"

Those aren't unreasonable questions, particularly for people who are confident in their theory and their integrity.

Very recently, a fellow named Bellesiles published a dearly-loved treatise on American gun ownership in the 18th century. The treatise was embraced by leftists all across the television dial, because it purported to skewer what it called a cherished myth--that of the armed American. It turns out that ordinary citizens actually checked his footnotes and determined he was fabricating evidence and misinterpreting what he fabricated. I recall being ridiculed for questioning anything connected, albeit remotely, with CBS and the Smithsonian. He eventually received a vote of no confidence by his institution, and that's a vindication for the academy. It's not unreasonable, for the sake of the process, and in light of the passions this issue engenders, to at least entertain the last question as well.

When you get close to reasonable standards, I will believe you, but not until then. (I thought scientists enjoyed skepticsm, by the way.)

That's an interesting shift of the obligation. The burden of proof for anyone claiming they have found a new species is to answer any and all reasonable objections to the claim.

You have an interesting notion of where the burden of proof should rest in the first place. Abbott has an explanation of what has occurred here, and he presents evidence to support his explanation. But now the notion being advanced is that, not only must Abbott show evidence for his explanation, he must simultaneously disprove all other explanations before his can be considered valid. Needless to say, that's simply not possible - all alternate explanations cannot possibly be disproven. Instead, you have some alternate explanation, such as that this is not a new species at all, but merely one that has been overlooked. But now, you have the burden of showing some evidence for your alternate thesis. Then we'll put them side by side, and see which one appears to better explain the phenomenon in light of the evidence.

That's why your theories are, to this point, exactly equivalent to "seed from Mars" theories, no matter how "reasonable" you might find them - there's nothing supporting them other than an assertion that this is "reasonable". Reasonable it may be, but if you have an alternate explanation, you must support it yourself, rather than requiring everyone else to disprove it. After all, in the absence of any support for your contention that this is a dormant seed, why should anyone believe it in the first place?

When you get close to reasonable standards, I will believe you, but not until then. (I thought scientists enjoyed skepticsm, by the way.)

Reasonable standards are the issue at hand - it is not reasonable to expect "proof". It is not reasonable to demand that all competing explanations be disproven before accepting one or the other explanation.

And as for skepticism...if you have some basis for the skepticism, such as evidence for a better explanation, then fire away. Otherwise, it's simply skepticism for its own sake, in which case you will find it difficult to avoid assuming the Humean position that we really don't "know" much of anything...