I was thinking it may be the same model (couldn't tell if it was from the same two scientists). The two may had to rework their model and get peer review buy-in in order to get published in nature. This is quite a claim and it would affect the evolution timeline assuming we go with the 3.2 billion year timeline they have. No life was supposed to exist back then, but the buried evidence shows different.
There are a lot of pieces from so many different kinds of research! Consider one thing: a Water World Earth could have some (for instance volcanic) islands for one thing, and also of course, life
might have started under the water is another idea. Etc. There are a lot of reports of varied research lines.
At the moment a main idea is there were very primitive bacteria (from fossil evidence) being on Earth about 3.8bn years back (which involves some reasonable efforts at dating which of course have their own
models, meaning they can get modified later in time) --
Earliest known life forms - Wikipedia.
To me, generally, all of creation, meaning the entire Universe, has unfolded perfectly like a flower from a seed.
An amazing, perfect design.
Physics is the term for those fundamental laws of nature by which all of nature operates.
As soon as this particular Physics we have was brought into being, then all this Universe unfolded just as we see, simply that Design (physics) in action. We understand of course from scripture that God has intervened here on this wonderful home we live on many times. We are not necessarily told all of the times. I think He intervened to choose the asteroid 66 million years ago that made the dominant dinosaurs into compost, and cleared the way for the rise of the mammals, and the age of man.
