I said nothing of the sort. Still, I'll address your point below. Given that no evidence has (yet) been presented, and no insight into the way that such extrapolation was calculated, all we have is a claim parroted by unreliable sources that cite a source that may or may not even exist. See, the genetic fallacy only applies to actual evidence and actual logic. Here, we're presented with neither and only have the credibility of the claimant to go on and so far, that's not looking very good. Let me illustrate this for you. If Galileo had made 1,000 fraudulent scientific claims in his lifetime, none of that would be relevant if he put a telescope to your face and told you to look up, then showed you a piece of paper that demonstrated his math. It would, however, be the only thing of relevance if he simply told you that he saw something and that he had the math figured out. So, I shall do what I always do when there is not enough information. I wait.