In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

Read this for example;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0721100418.htm

Can we expect a strained explanation
that saves the paradigm from those pesky
dwarf galaxies, which are not numerous enough,
don't have the right amount of dark matter,
and now dance to a tune that the LCDM cannot
play?

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are many
observations which DO support LCDM. Even if one observation doesn't,
one cannot toss aside LCDM unless one has another theory that explains
this new observation AND ALL OTHER OBSERVATIONS WHICH SUPPORT LCDM.

It also depends on what "LCDM" means. If it means a positive
cosmological constant and most of the matter being non-baryonic, then
this observation does not contradict that. What it might contradict is
a specific model of galaxy formation.

A common mistake is to think that a correction to details rules out the
underlying theory, like when creationists claim that some minor
modification in the field of genetics (which didn't even exist in
Darwin's day), say, rules out the theory of evolution (and perhaps even
proves that Genesis is literally true).