Yes. But I am trying to communicate to you that any calculation done for the probability of abiogenesis has to take into account the number of concurrent repeated Bernoulli trials as well as the number of sequential trials. You don't seem to understand this. Is this why you pinged Alamo-Girl?
I am also saying that if we are not sure of the initial conditions and available chemical combinations, any such calculation is bound to be inaccurate.
It's the one that takes that counts, and it happened at one point in time. Turning inanimate to animate was a no time the odds on favorite.
So, again I make my point that the probability AGAINST inanimate to animate is enormous.
btw, I pinged Alamo because we're friends from other threads, and I thought she'd enjoy this.
We began a far reaching evaluation of the alternative theories of abiogenesis, gathered a great deal of information and then ran into a snag when we ask the respondents to agree on "what is life v non-life/death in nature"
The original crew all agreed to use Shannon's Mathematical Theory of Communications - but some of the other correspondents objected and offered no functional substitute.
The bottom line to us was that no theory of abiogenesis can be taken seriously until there is agreement on the "from" and the "to". How can one say they have a theory for life from non-life when they cannot say what either is?
One must consider that rocks, rabbits and dead rabbits are made of the same elementary particles and fundamental forces. One must consider the difference between a live skin cell and a dead one, what is removed from a live cell that it becomes death before we can examine its chemical structures. And then one must fit all engimas into the model: viruses, mimiviruses, viroids, bacterial spores, prions, etc.