I hate to be pedantic but there is no logical connection between absence of information and a positive result of any kind.
The way the article is written makes it sound as if they’ve demonstarted some great breakthrough in the spontaneous generation of life, while in fact, all they’ve done is shown that little pieces of living matter retain some of the characteristics of life outside their natural context.
It is another wall that lets us see the next hill. It is an important breakthrough but it does not purport to say anything other than what is reported -- that it is giving us more information on what may have happened. To backtrack several billion years is pretty significant, scientifically.
>> It is another wall that lets us see the next hill. It is an important breakthrough but it does not purport to say anything other than what is reported — that it is giving us more information on what may have happened. <<
Yeah, it’s also the 17,320,119th time the media has claimed to have just about created life in a laboratory. Mind you, in this case, it’s at least far more interesting than the time they set up “plausibly natural” conditions to synthesize uracil and reported for a solid decade that “the building blocks of life” had been created in a lab.