Are they saying that the samples were more successful because the present-day equipment found things that 50 year old equipment did not find? That is... the 22 amino acids were present 50 years ago, just not detectable by Miller/Urey?
Or (and I find this much more impressive) are they saying that the samples are more successful than previously thought because those 5 amino acids in the samples have gone on to evolve into (or somehow otherwise create) 22 amino acids on their own over the last 50 years?
I think the former, rather than the latter, is what they were arguing for. If the 22 amino acids came along some time after the experiment, I'd suspect contamination rather than some revolutionary chemical evolution discovery
Also: I'm not sure if they found the amino acids, or evidence of the previous existence of those amino acids.