It’s one thing to be expected to believe an orthodoxy, another to be expected to believe that the current revolution of a whirligig represents some ultimate reality:
Until recently, the story of our origins was thought to be settled: Homo sapiens evolved in eastern Africa about 150,000 years ago, became capable of modern behaviour some 60,000 years ago and then swept out of Africa to colonise the world, completely replacing any archaic humans they encountered. But new fossils, tools and analyses of ancient and modern genomes are tearing apart that neat tale. The Jebel Irhoud skull has turned out to be a key to a new, slowly emerging paradigm. With the dust yet fully to settle, the question now is how many, if any, of our old assumptions still hold.
Graham Lawton, “Human evolution: The astounding new story of the origin of our species” at New Scientist
The long article behind the paywall refers to the “increasingly outdated concept of what constitutes a species,” “just one of dozens of competing definitions.” Increasingly outdated and uncertain, yes. But remember, the Darwin revolution was about—wait for it!—On the Origin of Species. It is a measure of the stagnation of science journalism that Darwinism is still considered “evolution” when even basic reporting cannot portray it that way any more.
What we are really being asked to believe is that our betters should do our thinking for us, irrespective of outcomes. Much depends on whether we believe that.