Replies

"So, again I make my point that the probability AGAINST inanimate to animate is enormous.

And again I will make my point, that those calculations are inaccurate and that you are having a difficult time understanding the probability.

The initial assumption that one and only one combination of chemical interactions would or could result in life are incorrect. My statement is that we do not know which possible interactions could result in life.

The assumption that one and only one environment is conducive to those interactions forming or producing prelife is also inaccurate. Again, we do not know which conditions out of the almost unlimited number available on prebiotic Earth would encourage life.

The calculations done to prove the unlikelihood of abiogenesis have one small and one large problem. The small problem is the inaccurate assumptions. The large problem is their inappropriateness in the first place.

This does not even address the ethics and efficacy of proving one hypothesis by disproving another.

In reading this post, please place it in context to my previous post.

We could assume a dozen different ways it could happen, but that doesn't change the fact that it's incredibly rare with an astoundingly low probability.

(As you would say, the proof of how rare is that God had to create me to get me here. :>)

All these claims about "the odds" against life are based on a wildly bizarre scenario of disassociated atoms, from all over the cosmos, somehow randomly flying together to form a living cell. Even a minimal exposure to organic chemistry reveals the total absurdity of such an approach. In reality, the oceans of earth were probably (as now) saturated with various organic molecules. Starring with that as the initial state, the jump to a self-replicating molecule isn't that difficult to accept. Then you've got oceans teaming with self-replicators. And so on. It may seem improbable to progress from there, but given those conditions, and a few billion years, it's far from impossible.