A few days ago, I posted about the discovery of a New Guinea singing dog in the wild.
Again, here is the photo of the supposed dog:
I am a professional skeptic, and when I hear or read something that just doesn’t sound right, I question it.
Note that I am just questioning it. I am not saying that this is the case.
But could someone provide me evidence that this photo is not a photoshop of a “fawn” kelpie that has been placed in a jungle?
Here’s a fawn kelpie:
This particular color is called “fawn.” It’s actually a liver dilute, which means it has the brown-skinned allele and the dilution factor. This particular one has tan points, but they can come in solid colors, too.
This color is not common in dogs. It just isn’t.
So it would be very unusual for a wild dog from New Guinea to have this coloration.
So I’m skeptical.
The problem with being a skeptic is you’re bound to piss off people who want to believe things.
I don’t care if it actually is what people purport it to be.
I am okay with that finding.
It’s just that no one seems to be questioning the coloration or offering any sort of skeptical inquiry about its origins.
Prove me wrong.
The claim that this is a New Guinea singing dog in the wild is an extraordinary claim.
And as the old saw goes “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
It is possible to photoshop a fawn kelpie into this landscape, and until someone provide evidence that it cannot be a photoshop, then I’m going to continue my skepticism.
Skepticism, in general, is something that is very lacking among the New Guinea singing dog community. If one goes through their literature, virtually every fantastic claim is written down a biological fact.
That’s not good science.