Leaderboard

And proof is defined as a cogency of evidence that compells acceptance of the mind of a truth or fact. So technically, if you dismiss each piece of evidence or exclude it, you can't see the cogency.

Somehow this... Became this... The only direction the bar has moved since Linnaeus is in favor of identifying new species from smaller and smaller pieces of material. The fact that we can even have a discussion about identifying a new species from its DNA signature illustrates this. I think I joined and started posting on BFF 1.0 in 2005, and I'm pretty sure that in my inaugural post I wrote something about needing a physical specimen to actually prove the existence of bigfoot and write a description of a new species. Where are you getting that I'm somehow moving the bar? I think you are cherry picking the questions you want to address. All this time and we still can't clear up the difference between evidence and proof. The bar for evidence should not be the same as the bar for classification/ proof.