I don't expect it to be static, but I do expect it to be plausible and provable. These theories come forth as the "gospel", when thay already have anomalies that refute the "new theory". These are theories and should be presented as such. But the counter arguements should also show the weakness in the theory. One place is such and such million years old beacase of the type of rock it was found in, and the next is older and it's found in dirt less than 3 ft? One group says tools were used at this time or that and another says they were not deveolped enough. What's weird is if you disagree with the latest discovery, you are labeled a heratic, fired from the university, and banned from ever working again. Tolerant and open minded, huh. One woman discovered a South American civilization that was allegedly 25k old. They had iron tools, mathamatics, and large temples of stone. The university said that was imposible because it didn't fit their theory that North Americans came across the Berring Strait 10k years ago. She lost her funding, her tenure, and was unable to find work again. She was well respected and published before that. She had other scientists check her findings and they agreed with her. Didn't matter.
They pick and choose what they want, when they want. It's not science! It mostly has to do with funding and grants. They "discover" new things when the funding is coming due. For proof, check out the "Ozone Hole". They found the earth was "dying" about a month before funding dried up.