It should support the work of lee cronin and sarah walker (Assembly Theory), a novel way to identify compounds that are indicators of life by virtue of their complexity (so we don't need to make any dogmatic assumptions about what life can be made of). We still need to detect these things at a distance, so this paper is relevant, I think, but I also love Assembly Theory.

They have a new preprint that argues that Assembly theory can explain and quantify selection and evolution in complex systems: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.02279 (I think that it is one of the more under-appreciated papers out there).

> to detect organic molecules in the atmosphere

You don't really need to detect organic molecules. If anyone detected 21% oxygen (O2, inorganic) in Earth's atmosphere, they sure knew something was going on. Lifeless planets like Venus, Mars, have atmospheres that are close to chemical equilibrium. And Earth's atmosphere is far from equilibrium, free oxygen it much too reactive and wouldn't exist without photosynthesis continuously producing it.

According to NASA, abiotic production of O2 at Earth like levels is plausible. https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/news/215/oxygen-on-exoplanets-is...

Our understanding of astrochemestry is still limited enough, that we cannot say with confidence that a given signature requires a biotic process to produce.

Link to full text: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep13977

> Our understanding of astrochemestry is still limited enough, that we cannot say with confidence that a given signature requires a biotic process to produce.

It will always be possible to find a new extreme edge case to deny far easier and more common processes that leave around biosignatures, it's the exact same rhetoric used to handwave away the methane in the martian atmosphere.