Let's ask the question one more time: WHAT WAS THE FIRST LIFE LIKE?
Well, this is the part where things become a bit more philosophical.
Using what we know about early life (not FIRST life), let's try and
put together a picture of what it might have been like.
But first, we must be in agreement about one thing: What constitutes life?
A biologist might begin with very broad characteristics. A living
organism utilizes energy (metabolism), is capable of
reproduction (increase in biomass), and undergoes evolution.
Sounds good! But immediately we begin to run into problems:
Unfortunately, any definition of life will have exceptions, counter-examples.
Yet, most of us instinctively know what is and isn't life!
So let's move on and define: What's required for life? (This will look
a bit like what we defined above):
The Biogenic Elements: C, N, O, P, S, and H are considered contingent
for life as we know it. Luckily, All of these elements are highly
abundant.
Carbon based life is all we know. However, scientist
argue that Carbon is like no other element: it forms the widest
variety of Bonds than any other element, and thus a major constituent of
all biological chemicals. It's likely life elsewhere would also be Carbon-based.
Reproduction, while may not be required to define life (recall the
Mule example), is vital for a species to maintain its presence in the universe.
Energy Source. They may have been heterotrophic - requiring a constant
source of organic compounds from which to derive energy for growth and reproduction.
They probably were not photo-autotrophic (i.e. photosynthetic), which requires
complex structures and reactions, but may have been chemo-autotrophic, deriving
energy from inorganic chemicals, as many bacteria and archaea currently do.
Mules, Viruses, Fire, Crystals, "Terminators", etc..