So obviously the temperature of earth after formation for 1 billion yrs was perfect for life to arise.
Suitable at least, If it wasn't, then life wouldn't have arisen.
That sucks we’ll never be able to replicate that to validate the theory of abiogenesis.
We will never have anything besides hypotheses.
Absent time machines that would enable us to go back and observe (and probably contaminate the early earth with life that we brought, the mother of all time-loops) we will never really know.
I suppose that origin-of-life researchers can try to imagine what kind of steps were necessary, and then try to experimentally determine whether those processes are consistent with whatever our current knowledge is of conditions on the early earth. But there will nevertheless probably have been multiple ways that the origin of life might have happened. Different steps in different orders. Choosing decisively which model is what really happened might never be possible.
so it took 1 billion years for non living matter to develop into single celled organisms.
Some evidence suggests that it might have happened more quickly than that.
Then it took 3.5 billion yrs. for single celled organisms to become multicellular organisms.
Roughly.
That doesn't mean that nothing was happening in that period. The biggest evolutionary event in the microbiological period was the origin of the eukaryotes. There was also the earlier appearance and development in the prokaryotes of photosynthesis (which produced most of the oxygen in earth's atmosphere) along with the origin of ways to prevent life's extinction from oxidation (oxygen was originally poisonous to life) and then the development of oxidative forms of respiration to exploit the oxygen.
Put another way, evolution in the days when all life on earth was microorganisms was chemical evolution, evolution of metabolisms, biosynthesis and all the molecular genetic stuff that controls it. It wasn't morphological anatomical evolution of multicellular body plans until comparatively recently. Even today the variety of metabolisms found among the prokaryotes (bacteria and archaea) is astounding. While most bacteria look alike to the eye (little sausage shapes) they vary tremendously in what they can "eat"/metabolize and in what chemistry they use to do it.
Multicellular organisms have dominated the last 1 billion yrs.
More like 600 million years, since the "cambrian explosion" and its edicarian precursers.
It's certainly remarkable.
One would think it would’ve taken a shorter time for single celled organisms to become multicellular organisms given that it only took 1 billion years for non living matter to evolve into living single celled organisms.
Maybe more like a few hundred million years. And the very earliest earth was probably a very inhospitable place for the origin of life, newly congealed from planetismals, under constant asteroid bombartment...
who knows, it probably was the heat that sped things up during the transition from non living to living.
Maybe we’ll discover some of those pre single celled living things in outer space in the future.
Yes. The relatively rapid appearance of life on earth makes me give more credence to ideas of panspermia. Maybe not the arrival of fully formed life from space, but the arrival of partially formed organic precursers of life.
I'd guess that there's probably a lot more to this origin-of-life story that we don't even suspect yet.
I personally find the history of life on earth to be
absolutely fascinating.
An extraordinarily good book on the origin and subsequent history of cells is Franklin Harold's
In Search of Cell History (2014 U. Chicago Press)
https://www.amazon.com/Search-Cell-.../ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=