Maybe the implicit question is how different can an interpretation/assertion from one field of study be from related fields before the fields need a reorganizat

Maybe the implicit question is how different can an interpretation/assertion from one field of study be from related fields before the fields need a reorganization for coherence’s sake? My intuition is that the gene acts as an data ledger relatively more reliable than other physical artifacts both in terms of semantics and availability. I’m open for that view to be falsified and it would be preferable for concordant interpretations and presence of molecular and other types of evidence.