tcmtech I agree things change slowly. I also agree humans like their constants ... well constant.
If a constant isn't, they should put forth a hypothesis on the source(s) of the errors. Any number of things could cause errors, even the human. Occam's Razor certainly applies. In some discussions, Occam has disappeared and only a singular item is put forth as the cause. This tests man's credulity with such singularities, and the intercourse turns ugly with personal attacks, to say the least.
I assume you saw Horizon "dancing in the dark" earlier?
It is on iPlayer, but tricky to find. Click on Categories - Science and Nature - 23 episodes (to the right of Horizon) and select the older episode "dancing in the dark"
2 years old episode, but as far as I know still relevant
Historically those definitions and changes took a long time to come about from one to the the other as the sciences and technology behind them grew.
As far as I know there have never been any huge world changing discoveries or advancements that ever happened in a day or even a decade or less. Even with as rapid as our sciences and technologies advance today pretty much everything is still based on well founded theories and or proven facts that were first discovered or defined some time ago.
Given that natural rate of change I have hard time believing anyone who starts making a big fuss aobut something that appears to fall well outside of what is already known somewhere and understood t some degree. Especially so if what they say can't be easily confirmed yet everything that goes against it can.
The Human genome took around a decade??? I should know how long, but cant remember now :O. That was pretty big. But yeah I guess it takes a while on the whole.
I assume you saw Horizon "dancing in the dark" earlier?
It is on iPlayer, but tricky to find. Click on Categories - Science and Nature - 23 episodes (to the right of Horizon) and select the older episode "dancing in the dark"
2 years old episode, but as far as I know still relevant