The space agency's James Webb Space Telescope discovered a molecule called dimethyl sulphide, or DMS, on the distant planet, which on Earth can only be produced by life, according to a report from the BBC.
"On Earth, DMS is only produced by life. The bulk of it in Earth's atmosphere is emitted from phytoplankton in marine environments," University of Cambridge Profesor Nikku Madhusudhan, who led the research, told the BBC. More @ https://www.foxnews.com/us/nasa-detects-molecule-another-planet-only-produced-by-life
Spectroscopic analysis. Very effective. No reason to doubt it. But there have been other chemicals found in interstellar space for no clear reason. Just because a chemical is produced by life does not mean that it cannot be produced by abiotic chemistry. (In fact, we produce it by abiotic chemistry, but it is complicated.)
NASA is obsessed with the "Search for Life." I consider it purely as a public relations campaign to convince the public that NASA is somehow "relevant." I also think it is part of a strategy to promote "evolution" as the origin of life, rather than Creation.
I am mindful of what happened when the Viking landers supposedly detected life on the surface of Mars---but NASA had to back-pedal at flank speed because the chemistry of the test was open to question. (Now they are trying again.)
To me, all this is a complete waste of time, resources, and money. The emphasis should be "boots on the ground---of another planet." If there is life, we will find it. Or it will find us. There is this arrogant conceit that the only way we will find something is if we diligently look for it. No consideration of the possibility that it will appear among our explorers without warning.
I think this discovery is neat and all, but of course there are reasons to doubt it. Not understanding the technology and how it's possible to come to these conclusions isn't an excuse for being dismissive of it (I don't know how to build a nuclear power plant, but they clearly exist).
Certainly I believe questioning the science is a big part of science at its heart. Dismissing it is bad; asking how and being skeptical is good.
Just like carbon dating -- and, well, everything else, methods and conclusions can always be sound but lead to the wrong conclusions too.
Always important to show the raw data with discoveries like this, and provide your models and methods used. Crowd criticism and viewership can either tear it apart or agree with the findings.
A spectrographic signature of a molecule is as unique as a fingerprint. They don't imitate one another. There is no answer to the question: What else can it be?
If I recall correctly, amino acids have been discovered in interstellar space as well. Does it prove the presence of life? No, it only proves that their formation does not depend on biology. And that may be all that this proves.