> While the impact crater itself is long gone, analysis of rocks from 3.26 billion years ago tells a tale of planetary devastation. The layer of spherules from this huge impact was 15 to 20cm thick in places, compared with less than a centimetre for the famed dinosaur-killing meteorite, says Drabon.
Yes. What else do you expect from science, or really from any human attempt to find truth? Are you just upset they don't include the caveat "subject to potential future evidence or better theories" on literally every single piece of science journalism? Are you upset that people do their best to make sense of weird situations and then tell people about their work, even if it's not absolute truth? What do you want to happen here?
Here's what the actual paper says:
> [...] Thus, the S2 impact likely had regional, if not global, positive and negative effects on life. The tsunami, atmospheric heating, and darkness would likely have decimated phototrophic microbes in the shallow water column. However, the biosphere likely recovered rapidly, and, in the medium term, the increase in nutrients and iron likely facilitated microbial blooms, especially of iron-cycling microbes.
Which sounds and - if I understand it correctly - means something kinda different than how "reset early life" is ordinarily understood, huh.
Edit: I've changed the title to that of the paper.