If you are going to be pedantic, there is no such thing as 'proof' at all. You can only ever demonstrate that you are 9X% likely to be correct.

Maybe the murder caught on camera is a lost identical twin, or victim of a very elaborate frame-up. The standard for conviction is beyong reasonable doubt. What is reasonable?

Maybe we have laws of physics wrong, and next tuesday sun will rise in the west, and Jesus rises from the dead. Again.

Do yoy trust governments and scientists? They used to claik smoking is a great way to get your essential vitamins.

Do you trust your own mind, because research has shown people can be manipulated into remembering things that never happened.

Ib radical doubt, the only thing you can proove is 'I think, therefore I am".

> but far from what anyone knowledgeable would consider proof.

Which is why the comment said "evidence" and not "proof".

So then just give voice to unsubstantiated rumors that contraindicate what we see in the genetic marker?

Also I'd like to contest that the nature study is "suggestive" that its not man made. Finding Elvis dead in Vegas is not "suggestive" that Elvis is dead.

If you are asking me to proof a negative, that's virtually impossible.

Read the Nature paper.