If you have a “new theory” that is consistently contradicted by new and existing evidence, it’s not much of a theory.
I’d qualify it as a fantasy.
Everyone, especially people writing for newspapers, needs to understand tthe great distinction between a theory and a hypothesis
Or an "old theory".
You miss the point.
By insisting on constancy and certainty you close your mind to new information. The fact there might be conflict between information raised by different fossils does not preclude an irreconcilable difference of the available information. The facts of the fossils are different. The theories can and should be also uncertain, ie not identical. There is far more unknown than there is known.
By harping on the concept of theory not having absolute validity and clinging to myth drawn from thin air as certainty, there is a lot of vacant intellectual ground.
“If you have a “new theory” that is consistently contradicted by new and existing evidence, it’s not much of a theory.
I’d qualify it as a fantasy.”
Does that mean that Obamacare won’t really reduce the costs of health care or provide better care at less cost?
The idea that between 230 and 65 million years ago, the Earth was home to reptiles of various sizes and shapes, at least some of which had feathers, and which are the ancestors of today's birds, is hardly "contradicted" by the idea that they may have all had feathers.