testimony. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592-93, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). While the trial judge’s inquiry under FRE 702 does not focus on the conclusions generated by expert witness testimony, the trial judge’s duty is to ensure that the scientific principles that underlie the conclusions are both relevant to the issue at hand and reliable. Id. at 595, 113 S.Ct. 2786. Additionally, the Supreme Court recently held in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999), that the principles established in Daubert apply with equal force to expert testimony which is based upon experience and training rather than on science per se. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 149, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999) (<HOLDING>); See also Fed.R.Evid. 702, Advisory Committee
holding that a bare conclusion offered without explanation or empirical support fails the reliability requirement of rule 702 recognizing that the advisory committee notes suggest that a landowners opinion as to the value of the property could be offered under either fre 701 or fre 702 presumably depending on the level of experience training or specialized knowledge that went into formulating the opinion quoting fed r evid 702 holding that federal rule of evidence 702 superceded the frye standard of admissibility of scientific evidence and that under rule 702 the district court had to determine that proffered expert testimony was both reliable and relevant holding that fre 702 applies to all offers of expert witness testimony requiring that the trial court determine the reliability and relevance of the offered submissions recognizing under fre 702 that there is no clear line dividing testimony based on scientific knowledge from testimony based on technical or other specialized knowledge holding that a single flexible test for reliability applies to all expert testimony