Why why why do people share articles with sensational headlines like this? Its no wonder science journalism gets a bad rap. This kind of thing really undermines all the people who are actually trying to communicate science properly.

In my opinion, this article is misleading at best. "...scans of ancient galaxies gathered by the JWST seem to contradict the commonly accepted predictions of the most widely accepted Cold Dark Matter theory, Lambda-CDM." --> LCDM doesn't predict what galaxies should look like, it simply predicts how much mass is in collapsed structures and that dark matter haloes grow hierarchically. In contrast, with JWST we see light and need to infer what the underlying properties of the system are. It was shown very early on that the theoretical upper limit (i.e. taking all of the gas that is available in collapsed structures and turning it into stars) predicts a luminosity function (i.e. number of galaxies per unit luminosity) that is orders of above what JWST has observed (e.g. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.521..497M/abstra...). This means that there is plenty of space within the context of LCDM to have bright and seemingly large and massive galaxies early on. Based on current JWST data at these early epochs, there are really no convincing arguments for or against LCDM because it's highly sensitive to the galaxy formation model that's adopted.

« Stunning evidence » … then later on: « Instead, the readings _seem_ to support a basis for MOND, which _would_ force astronomers and cosmologists to reconsider this alternative and long-controversial theory of gravity. » What’s conditional evidence? I may be missing the overall picture, but I view such writing as non precise at its best.

I follow the lead author, Stacy McGaugh, via his blog where he posts discussions and musings about the latest research into the dark matter vs MOND debate: https://tritonstation.com/new-blog-page/

His arguments are very convincing and relatively clear. I am not an astrophysicist but I have two degrees in physics and have always found the dark matter theory to be lacking -- in absence of any evidence of causation whatsoever, dark matter can only be described trivially as "where we would put matter if we could to make our theory of gravity make sense," which is totally backwards from a basic scientific perspective.

Predictions based on modern MOND postulates are shown to be more and more accurate as our observational instruments continue to improve in sensitivity.

My hangup with MOND is still general relativity. We know for a fact that gravity is _not_ Newtonian, that the inverse square law does not hold. Any model of gravity based on an inverse law is simply wrong.

Another comment linked to https://tritonstation.com/new-blog-page/, which is an excellent read. It makes the case that GR has never been tested at low accelerations, that is might be wrong. But we know for a fact MOND is wrong at high accelerations. Unless your theory can cover both, I don't see how it can be pitched as an improvement to GR.

Edit: this sounds a bit hostile. to be clear, I think modified gravity is absolutely worth researching. but it isn't a silver bullet