In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

one cannot toss aside LCDM unless one has another theory that explains
this new observation AND ALL OTHER OBSERVATIONS WHICH SUPPORT LCDM.
------------------------------------------

I find it a bit humorous that in other contexts you
espouse the attitude that if a theory fails ONE
definitive prediction it's "time to move on" to
other ideas.

Does the LCDM apologist speak with forked tongue?

[Mod. note: this would be a valid point if one could demonstrate that
a different result for this observation was indeed a 'definitive
prediction' of LCDM -- mjh]

Indeed. Also, before an observation is believable, it needs to be
reproduced independently. Sandage measured the Hubble constant to be
42, but that doesn't make it so. Obviously, if various observations
disagree, then at least some of them are wrong. This is obvious if they
are made at the same time. That doesn't imply, though, that if one
makes a particular observation which no-one else does, then one is
automatically correct.

In this case, my hunch is that the observation is correct and that the
model of galaxy formation is not completely correct.

Whatever the final status of this observation is, it doesn't rule out
LCDM in the narrow sense of the term, though it might very well rule out
a specific model of galaxy formation (which some carelessly subsume into
LCDM) if it does indeed contradict a definitive prediction of said
model.