I realize that, however quoting someone does not imply the quote is valid as evidence. The violation of the validity can come in different variants. One variant is that one tries to extend the meaning of a quote beyond the original meaning. A second variant is that the quote appears to support a claim, but in broader context it does not. This is know as quote mining. A third, and I already mentioned this, the quoted claim may be of controversial nature, in other word it is not an established fact.
I do not think you been quote mining, however I think your quote falls into the category of the third (and possible the first) type of violation. This means you cannot use the quote to support your claim, unless you can show it does not violate any of the principles of being valid. So for instance can you given an example of two text books in genetics with a teen years difference in where the knowledge in one textbook is radical different than the other textbook?
For example. I have a counter example. For instance the 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition of Benjamin Lewis textbook Genes, has been used at university as textbook in genetics. It has the editions printed 1983, 1985 and 1987. That is span of 4 years, and yes while things been added the content has not changed radically in any sense.
You may say that this is not 10 years. True, but this is why I also have another example; Genetics - A molecular approach written by T.A. Brown. This book very much treat the same subject as Lewis book, and has also been used in the same way as Lewis Genes. Again there is 3 editions and the print years are 1990, 1992, 1998. These edition spans 8 years, and again while things been added the general content has not changed.
Now Lewis and Brown are two textbook used in the same classes with an 11 years difference. That should do. If Collins is right and I compare Lewis' 3rd edition from 1987 with Brown's 3rd edition from 1998 I should be reading two fundamental different books, shouldn't I?
But I don't.... the content is in principle the same, except for that Brown have includes research done since after 1987. This is only to be expected, Lewis couldn't possible have added knowledge from the future in his 1987 textbook, right?
This is why I think your claim, not Collins, is wrong (I still do not know why Collins said what he said). But I don't think we seen a "revolution" in our knowledge and understanding even for the past 100 years - only a slow increasing body of knowledge, standing on all previous knowledge, which grows every year, forcing textbook authors to regularly update academic textbooks to stay in touch with the latest research.