Thank you for the explanation! I think I finally have a clearer sense of what you mean and where you're coming from.

To be honest, I'm not remotely convinced, at this point. It seems to me to be trading an old set of scarcely-supported just-so stories, which I never found particularly convincing and seemed suspiciously convenient for the prevailing sociopolitical outlook of the time, with a new set of slightly-better-but-still-scarcely-supported just-so stories that better suit the current prevailing sociopolitical outlook, and which I still don't find convincing, largely because of the same type of methodological flaws.

But that's a me problem, in that if I want to point out the methodological problems or learn why I'm mistaken that they're problems, it's on me. And I don't have the time.

So, in the absence of that, I am appreciative that you have taken the time to help me at least figure out what you mean.