Well, no, they have to incorporate new evidence and figure out what it means. Evolution encompasses a lot of detail and the details change whenever new evidence is discovered. You seem to be faulting scientists for not knowing everything about evolution from the start. Your comment here demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of how science works.Flann 5 wrote: Here's another inconsistency with the story. Wasps morphologically the same as the modern ones that lay their larvae in fig plants,existed 65 million years before the fig plants appear in the fossil record. Not only that but the molecular dating for figs also places figs similarly later.
Of course they speculate and invent stories to get around this, as they always do in these cases.
I have referred to an essay in the past written by Jeffrey Ellis called “Castles and Tents”. The author says that to be critical thinkers we have to build tents, not castles. Dogmatists build castles and throw up walls and embattlements from which to protect and defend their firmly entrenched beliefs against attack. But good critical thinkers build tents. Interested only in moving their opinions as close to the truth as possible, they must be able to pull up stakes and relocate as new arguments and new evidence cause them to reconsider their opinions.
In science we have to follow the evidence. This is its strength. If new evidence comes along or new interpretations are made of existing evidence that contradict our older assertions, we will happily pick up our stakes and move the tent.
http://jeffreyellis.org/castles-and-tents/