[moloch-hai]

At issue is that there is now new evidence. It should be obvious that conclusions reached in its absence do not incorporate any evaluation of the new evidence.

The conclusion might be strengthened, unaffected, weaker, or even reversed. That is the point. There is no value in new evidence other than that it might make a difference. What is difficult about this?

[msrenee]

There's no old evidence. You can go looking for connections, but don't try to tell me there was a reason to defend the theory to start with.

[moloch-hai]

There is plenty of old evidence. We call them runestones. The glyphs on them have disputed origin. Nobody seems to imagine they were made up from whole cloth. But they don't resemble any other alphabet closely enough to nail down how they did develop.

Older examples would generally be expected to more closely resemble whatever they came from. Is this unfamiliar reasoning?