Life didn't need those things to arise; that's just a matter of the right chemistry and physics being available for a relatively short period of time. But it w

Life didn't need those things to arise; that's just a matter of the right chemistry and physics being available for a relatively short period of time. But it would seem to need them for sustained evolution to be possible. So as I said, I'd expect lifeforms at the complexity level of viroids, but not at the level of eukaryotes. Evolution needs time, lots of time in which conditions don't change too much. (Chemistry that works in dilute solution at 300K doesn't work well at 200K or 500K.) It also needs populations to be able to spread to new areas. Without a magnetic field, Mars's atmosphere got stripped off. No more liquid water, no more areographical distribution, so no more evolution. Plate tectonics is needed to ensure that nutrient chemicals don't get locked up permanently in sedimentary rock. As for the habitable zone, life as we know it needs liquid water on the surface. Mars may have briefly been habitable, but not for long enough. To be a challenge, the article needs to provide plausible alternative evolutionary pathways that get us eukaryotes without needing these things (time, liquid water, chemical recirculation, limited variability in physcal conditions). It doesn't do that. It's just spitballing. If early Mars was OK for life to begin, then so was early Earth. We don't need any interplanetary travel.