>>11160543I didn't call him a crank anon. He's a great scientist. Please don't strawman, it's a bad look for you.
I'm saying he still has to write up his argument, just like everyone else does.
When his research team introduced us to DNA, they officially published their findings, they didn't just run around to TV shows and tabloids waving their hands about how the evidence is all around us.
>>11160839>you're just a science denierNo, it's the opposite. You're the one denying the necessity of scientific rigor. I'm the one asking for it.
It's not some ridiculous, unprecedented order. Let him formally present his data and conclusions. Until then, he hasn't actually made an argument.
