I think what this argues is that all data and all theories are subject to revision. It seems to me that those who cling to any given scientific explanation as the last word on any matter are as guilty of this as anyone.
The data changed. In light of new evidence, it is appropriate to question models that were built on refuted evidence. Why is that hard for "science-oriented" people to see? Isn't that the essence of the scientific method?
From out here, committed proponents of evolution are every bit as blind to new ideas as committed creationists are.
Where is the science? BTW, Newton sent over 100 to the gallows for faking.
No models were questioned after Archaeoraptor except maybe the model of buying from Chinese fossil merchants. No more was appropriate. A tiny fraction of a percent of the data changed, and the Luddites on FR were shrieking (in delight) that all of science since 1859 had collapsed, a serious overstatement of the situation. Why is THAT hard to understand?