Sugar discovered floating in deep space for the first time 38%

By Andrew Paul22%

7/13/2026, 3:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Unattributed Quote, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 21.3% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 689 faulty-reasoning hits from 469 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.9% and a BS Rank of 38% (13,708 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 62.60% of the article peer group.

For the first time, astrobiologists have positively identified something sweet in outer space. 
According to a study published today in the journal Nature Astronomy , a team successfully pinpointed a type of sugar called erythrulose inside a molecular cloud near the center of the Milky Way galaxy. 
Here on Earth, the four-carbon compound is most often found in sunless tanning creams and raspberries. 
Life as we know it is built on sugars. 
The biomolecules are both integral to metabolic processes, while also serving as foundations for both DNA and RNA. 
But despite their importance, evolutionary biologists still aren’t quite sure how the first sugars on Earth developed.. 
Experiments indicate that the planet’s prebiotic conditions billions of years ago simply did not offer the conditions needed to form substantial enough amounts of the molecules. 
However, astronomers have previously detected sugars like glucose and ribose inside asteroid and meteorite fragments —suggesting that life on Earth may have received a little sweet encouragement from deep space. 
For this new study, researchers conducted a cosmic spectroscopic survey using a pair of highly sensitive telescopes at the Institute for Radio Astronomy in the Millimeter Range (IRAM) near Grenoble, France. 
After analyzing a region close to the gaseous cloud called G+0.693-0.027 (located about 27,000 light-years away from Earth), the team identified 12 spectral lines matching previously measured samples of erythrulose. 
They also measured at least eight times more erythrulose than similar three-carbon sugars in the cloud, which included none of the latter variants. 
Study co-author Izaskun Jiménez-Serra , an astrophysicist at Spain’s Centro de Astrobiología (CAB), called her team’s discoveries completely unexpected. 
“The prevailing view in astrochemistry is that interstellar molecules grow in size through the sequential addition of carbon atoms,” she explained in a statement . 
Following additional investigations by chemists at Spain’s University of Extremadura and Radboud University in the Netherlands, the team determined that erythrulose is capable of forming inside interstellar ice particles from simpler alcohols and other molecules. 
In fact, there is so much erythrulose inside G+0.693−0.027 that scientists calculated anywhere between 0.5 and 55 million tons of the sugar may have landed on Earth 4.1 to 3.8 billion years ago, during a formative cosmic era known as the Late Heavy Bombardment . 
This would have been more than enough to assist in the development of the planet’s first replication and metabolic processes that ultimately led to life. 
“The detection of erythrulose is very exciting because it opens up the possibility of discovering in space other sugars such as ribose, which is part of RNA, and other important molecules for the origin of life,” added study co-author and CAB astrobiologist Carlos Briones . 
The post Sugar discovered floating in deep space for the first time appeared first on Popular Science . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 2.5%Popular Science: 2.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 0.8%Anchoring Bias4.9%This article: 9.8%Andrew Paul: 3.0%Popular Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic9.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.1%Popular Science: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.3%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 3.2%Popular Science: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 4.4%Popular Science: 3.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.3%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.7%Status Quo Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 19.2%Andrew Paul: 6.7%Popular Science: 4.6%Optimism Bias19.2%This article: 3.6%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.7%Pessimism Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 4.3%Popular Science: 3.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.6%Popular Science: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.2%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 0.9%Recency Bias7.2%This article: 2.8%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.3%Andrew Paul: 5.5%Popular Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority5.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.2%Popular Science: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.5%Andrew Paul: 5.0%Popular Science: 4.1%Hasty Generalization5.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.6%Andrew Paul: 3.4%Popular Science: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion9.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 21.3%Andrew Paul: 2.4%Popular Science: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)21.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.9%Popular Science: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.9%Andrew Paul: 2.2%Popular Science: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.2%Popular Science: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.8%Andrew Paul: 2.3%Popular Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote12.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 18.8%Andrew Paul: 5.0%Popular Science: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice18.8%This article: 9.6%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 1.3%Indoctrination9.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 2.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.8%

469 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers19%attributed speech380writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageIzaskun Jiménez-Serra • 19 words • 0.0% coverageIzaskun Jiménez-Serra • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageCarlos Briones • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Carlos Briones

100%flagged-word coverage
45 attributed words51% of attributed speech67% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Carlos Briones: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-23.2 ptsWriter: 23.2%Carlos Briones: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-15.8 ptsWriter: 15.8%Carlos Briones: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%Carlos Briones: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.