[reasonisfaith]

The chance that any strand of amino acids will work is one in ten to the seventy-seventh power.

(That is, if they assemble according to chance.)

The total number of organisms since life began is ten to the fortieth power.

This tells us that random mutations cannot produce workable biological change.

[BroJoeK]

Your probabilities are nonsense because you don’t know the conditions at the time.
The more likely probability is 100% for each small step, when conditions for it were right.

What the evidence suggests is that very simple life did somehow begin billions of years ago and then very slowly complexified.
Evolution is the only natural science explanation for it we have.

[BroJoeK]

reasonisfaith from post #415: "The chance that any strand of amino acids will work is one in ten to the seventy-seventh power.
(That is, if they assemble according to chance.)
The total number of organisms since life began is ten to the fortieth power.
This tells us that random mutations cannot produce workable biological change."

G.I.G.O. math based on absurd assumptions.
The reality is vastly different.
Rather than one impossibly small probability of life "springing forth", abiogenesis doubtless began with millions of small baby-steps each one inevitable under the right conditions.
What were those conditions, were they even possible on Earth?
Nobody knows, but geological evidence suggests the very earliest, simplest, organic chemistry-cum-life began relatively "soon" (a few hundred million years) after the Earth itself cooled enough for solid land.