Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence

Yes, and in a scientific context, all conclusions are tentative. So you're trying to draw a distinction that doesn't exist.

That's not an absence of evidence. That's evidence. What would you call it if we concluded that the thing is absent after searching one place in an expermental space of unknown size? You can't make conclusions from an absence unless you know how much of the whole that absence represents.Which is to say that I totally agree with you. But what you're saying is different than what DNA is saying.

Nonetheless as the other thread was the context that spawned this thread, it's valid to bring it up. The title of this thread begs the question "evidence for what?" and the answer to that is what DNA was trying to do in the other thread. Well, it's what DNA was trying to do in the other thread.If you don't feel that's an appropriate subject for this thread, then I guess I don't have anything else to talk about.

I agree that that's a valid and reasonable method, but you'll have to show me where DNA said that. Especially the part about defined search areas.

Well then I propose that if you don't know where something would be if it existed - if you don't know where to look - then absence of evidence in the places you've looked is not evidence of absence - it's evidence that you haven't looked in enough places.