note the use of the wrod "
plausible". as i said- its a problematic to find a real proof that the first organism was a bacteria-like creature since its very hard to find a real fossil of bacteria. as many other scientists admit:
World's Oldest Fossils Possibly Uncovered in Canada
"but exactly when that life first emerged has been hotly debated". "The trouble is that it's difficult for scientists to pin down signs of tiny life-forms that lived billions of years ago, when the Earth has gone through so many other changes since then." For instance, the 3.5-billion-year-old rocks identified in Australia, known as the Apex Chert, were initially touted as tiny microfossils, but a subsequent analysis found that the chemical remains were tied to nonbiological processes from hydrothermal vents, said Kurt Konhauser, a geomicrobiologist at the University of Alberta who was not involved in the new study. Furthermore, the 3.7-billion-year-old fossils found in Greenland could have gotten their intriguing chemical signature from a nonbiological process, according to the new study, which was published today (March 1) in the
journal Nature."
or: "The problem with the early fossil record of life is that it is so limited and difficult to interpret—careful reanalysis of the some of the very oldest fossils has shown them to be crystals, not fossils at all."
as you can see- its not wrong at all.
