Consider the authors of papers and studies don't write the articles and headlines. The headline is written as a click-hook, to get PR, because, well "publish or

Consider the authors of papers and studies don't write the articles and headlines. The headline is written as a click-hook, to get PR, because, well "publish or perish" and that's how the funding comes in. It sucks, but also if you just published the paper with a dry summary, it would also get ignored. Also, the bias is old. "Eukaryote" means "true cell"! It's right in the name, this bias about what "real" life is. Of course it's our anthropocentrism, I guess, but... I also think, on the broader point about abiogensis... it's quite likely that the cosmos is rather full of things that look like our prokaryotes. But eukaryotes and complicated multicellular life is either going to be extremely rare or non-existent within anything observable in, say, our galaxy. I say this because prokaryotes arose almost as soon as the earth cooled and developed a liquid ocean, and have been here almost as long as the planet. But eukaryotes have only been here for maybe 15% of the planet's existence or less, and seem to have basically arisen as kind of a 'fluke' event, and only once, and seem to have something to do with the very particulars of cell energy dynamics, mitochondria, and the fusion of archaeobacteria and bacteria, etc. Just really weird stuff. Putting it yet another way... prokaryotes have existed for almost the entire life of our planet, compose most of the life and biomass of the planet, and shape it in its most fundamental ways but are much the same as when they started, because they have rather strong intrinsic physical limits on energy and complexity. So, yes, life != multicellular organisms, but maybe it might turn out that eukaryotic and/or multicellular life is the only real "interesting" kind of life from the most broad perspective.