The phys.org article is decent, unlike the one linked in the OP, but the information isn't as huge as the title would suggest. The core of it is basically these two paragraphs:

The study revealed that early life preferred smaller amino acid molecules over larger and more complex ones, which were added later, while amino acids that bind to metals joined in much earlier than previously thought. Finally, the team discovered that today's genetic code likely came after other codes that have since gone extinct.

The authors argue that the current understanding of how the code evolved is flawed because it relies on misleading laboratory experiments rather than evolutionary evidence

I think most modern biologists would agree this was probable even if it wasn't codified yet

[–] Butterbee@beehaw.org 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The title is also weirdly phrased to make it sound like science was wrong. Of course science was wrong. The whole process is based on realizing that our past assumptions were wrong. Every time scientists discover something new, it replaces an old incorrect assumption. These sorts of titles are how you get to the "Mainstream media/science is bogus" track.

[–] JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social 6 points 2 months ago

The whole process is based on realizing that our past assumptions were wrong.

Well... or simply improving the understanding. AFAIK good science doesn't actually assert "rightness" or "wrongness;" rather, it proposes 'this theory seems the best working fit,' with the understanding and open-endedness that it can always be improved, tweaked, or even completely replaced by a better theory.

load more comments (2 replies)