It's science, not a "debate club." It's simply about trying to reconstruct something based on the samples which are still incomplete (and will remain very hard

It's science, not a "debate club." It's simply about trying to reconstruct something based on the samples which are still incomplete (and will remain very hard to improve): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokiarchaeota https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokiarchaeota "Specific sediment horizons, previously shown to contain high abundances of novel archaeal lineages[2][3] were subjected to metagenomic analysis. Due to the low density of cells in the sediment, the resulting genetic sequence does not come from an isolated cell, as would be the case in conventional analysis, but is rather a combination of genetic fragments.[4] The result was a 92% complete, 1.4 fold-redundant composite genome named Lokiarchaeum.[1] The metagenomic analysis determined the presence of an organism's genome in the sample. However, the organism itself has not been cultured.[1]" Now knowing that, the end of the article is what is the point: "But analyses of the Asgard archaea, including the Lokis, remain limited. “What people are really waiting for is the isolation of a member of these lineages,” says evolutionary microbiologist Simonetta Gribaldo at the Pasteur Institute." The other point is: "Other scientists are reserving judgement: “Trees change,” is a common refrain." Exactly. It seems some editors or the article writers think that when they cover something as a "debate" there's a "win" somewhere for them (1). "Mysterious" too. But it's confusing the causal readers who then miss to understand how amazing is what we already know and how fine these details are that still aren't known. ---- 1) It's also worth noting that there are some rich entities which pay a lot of money to "promote doubt" in the successes of natural sciences. Maybe even the non-biased editors "pick the signal" generated by the public addressed by such groups and then think that they just "reached more readers" with such titles or approaches in the articles. I would have expected from "Nature" not to, however.