Right, I "get" all that.
If I were working in the field and found a human looking skeleton in a stratum said to be 40 million years old, before I'd accept my first impressions, I'd examine every assumption -- is it really human? Is the stratum really 40 million years old? Was the fossil reburied at a later date? Etc., Etc..
I would not immediately believe anything that was totally unexpected -- you remember the old saying: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."
On the other hand, if a scientist is ethical and the evidence after careful reconsiderations truly does stand up, then he/she has an obligation to publish it.
Wasn't there a dinosaur in recent years with amazingly preserved collagen, which had anti-evolutionists going berserk -- "see, see, see! No way can DNA survive millions of years, therefore must be Young Earth!!"
Well... there was no dino-DNA, but there were bits of collagen which showed that dinosaurs taste like chicken.
And I suppose that's good to know, right?
Bottom line: no evidence falsifying basic evolution theory has ever been confirmed.
Of course, evolution as understood today is vastly different from what Darwin published in 1859.
But his basic idea remains unimpeached -- evolution results from 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
How likely would that be to pass peer review?
Sorry, but whoever tried to publish it would be kicked to the proverbial scientific curb, branded with the folks who made claims of skeletons of Giants, ancient astronauts, etc.
Wasn't there a dinosaur in recent years with amazingly preserved collagen, which had anti-evolutionists going berserk -- "see, see, see! No way can DNA survive millions of years, therefore must be Young Earth!!" Well... there was no dino-DNA, but there were bits of collagen which showed that dinosaurs taste like chicken. And I suppose that's good to know, right?
Dunno. most dinosaurs would be well past their 'use by' date. Even though I prefer beef, a newer chicken likely would more healthy.
Bottom line: no evidence falsifying basic evolution theory has ever been confirmed.
And none which proves the transitions critical to the theory has been presented either, namely from unicellular to multicellular organisms, from invertebrates to vertebrates, nor other critical junctures where the limbs attach to that family tree. In the end, it's all what you want to believe. Look at how long it took, despite evidence, to admit that pre-Clovis cultures were present in North America. My Archaeology Prof was a virtual heretic for even suggesting the Americas could have been populated as much as 32,000 years ago or more, yet, the data is finally coming out nearly 50 years later. Much of what didn't fit was either destroyed or lies buried in a dusty back room somewhere, because the people "qualified" to dig it out and report it were the ones with PhDs controlling what got published or living in terror of being discredited by demagogues standing on scientific orthodoxy.
Either way, it isn't just about science, it is about grant money, tenure, prestige, and preserving that prestige, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
We just saw a tremendous example of how that works with COVID.