QuoteOf course we do. We now have information that the Aliens aren't older than a few decades.
We have information that they
might be - 'Covenant' still hasn't resolved the Derelict.
QuoteYou're trying to argue that opinions made from ignorance are valid no matter how much additional information is learned.
Not exactly, I'm arguing that the opinions made from ignorance are *still* valid because they're not immediately disproven by one single piece of contradictory evidence.
QuoteHence the above analogy; you're arguing the original Iguanodon is just as valid an interpretation of an Iguanodon skeleton as the modern version despite decades of additional research.
The original iguanadon interpretation
was still valid in the science community when the first pieces of contradictory evidence started showing up - it just made people stop and say "hang on, maybe we need to rethink this". It was only after, as you mentioned, decades of additional research that scientists decided that the original iguanadon interpretation was wrong.
We don't have that decades of additional research for the origin of the Alien - we have a single piece of contradictory evidence. Further evidence would come in the form of additional movies or whatever, and we don't have that yet.
I'm saying we're still at the "hang on, maybe we need to rethink this" stage, rather than immediately jumping to "the new interpretation is correct, let's find ways to explain how we were wrong for 30 years".
A better analogy is if we found evidence today from a single study that Hawking Radiation couldn't exist. We don't just immediately disregard Hawking Radiation as a concept; we keep digging and see where it takes us, but it doesn't automatically mean Hawking Radiation is a less-valid or incorrect conclusion.