While science is an work in progress what you are expecting is a fundamental reworking of every aspect of advanced physics of the universe.
And with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. What you are asking to believe in magic.
To believe the “Ancient Astronaut Theory” is to believe, without getting into the physics impossibly of it but just the common sense of it, is these *aliens” they claim influenced every important aspect of human development yet left absolutely no evidence of the technology of which was needed to achieve it.
They built spaceships that had zero failure rate so bits of destroyed ships made impossible metallurgy by humans are never found? They have perfect actions so 100 percent collection of the most mundane tools so none would be found by humans later?
Yet their “presence” is everywhere in our history and in the present yet all we get are fuzzy pictures and fantastic stories of people claiming to be studied by aliens with anal proves and impregnate with space babies.
As it was said by somebody wiser than it.
“Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence”
And the “Alien Astronaut” crowd are long on the former and sorely lacking in the latter.
Perhaps if you are a scientist like Sagan who loves the spotlight and has the luxury of pondering things in the lab.
But if your daughter runs into the house screaming, "Mommy, Daddy, there's a giant dog in the yard." You don't say to her, "Honey, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." You take her at her word until you can check it out for yourself.
It's sort of the opposite side of the same coin when it comes to the religious crowd. Where's the evidence, but many are less prone to truly engage in that discussion. Perhaps because it would completely the belief system/s of millions.
Now, let's consider your statement about the fundamental reworking of advanced physics and there's a couple of different ways to approach this conversation. Is it really 'advanced' physics, or are we just getting to a point where can begin to understand the fundamentals. Bruce Lee said it simply, "A punch is just a punch. A punch is no longer a punch. A punch is just a punch."
The argument that we have to rework and/or rewrite what we know should not be a problem. Isn't that the purpose of science, to seek understanding? But if the understanding is incomplete from the start, then it could also be fair to say that the assumptions being used, and the answers based on those assumptions could be 'incomplete' or 'incorrect'.
What we call chemistry today, would seem magical to those 1,000 years ago. How would other modern technologies such as iPads, rockets, submarines be viewed by those same people? Even today, we have scientist scratching their heads because they are now identifying stars and/or celestial objects where none should exist...according to science. Perhaps it's because the model they used to calculate that probability is 'incomplete' and/or just plain 'wrong'?
Your argument smacks of 'the science is settled'. Yet there are discoveries every year where scientists are surprised. If the science were settled then why would there be any surprises?
As it relates to any ancient astronauts not leaving any evidence behind, would we even know if truly saw it? But how did the Mayans have an understanding of time, or how were Egyptian periods built with such accuracy and celestial alignment, the Dogon Tribe's understanding of celestial bodies, structures such as Gobleki Tepe, etc. These are questions that experts still struggle with explaining. Attempts to recreate some of the methods they used to explain how the structures were built failed miserably.