Request for Scientific Review

[sinnerdexter]

It can’t be evaluated, since the odds aren’t explained. He just says “so and so estimates odds of 1/zillion.” It’s the method of determining those odds that would need to be evaluated, as that’s the only substance in the paper - the rest is just arithmetic.

If, for example, the odds are calculated based on (known simple life configurations)/(total possible arrangements of matter), then that isn’t valid, for what should be obvious reasons. Life gradually arising as a consequence of natural processes is not equivalent to random molecules being tossed together and a bacterium popping out. Nobody believes the latter.

There is also the matter of the size of the universe. It is still an open question whether or not the universe is infinite. If it is, then such probabilities become meaningless - anything that could happen has happened.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Would it somehow change things if we found that life in the universe is common? If it’s common, then you have many “unrealistic” probabilities occurring, instead of just the one ad-hoc probablility (Earth) that has been observed.

One of the apparent weaknesses of the creationist arguments against abiogenesis is the great depth of ignorance science has about the process. While many plausible schemes have been proposed in outline, we actually have no idea of which of these, if any is valid, I we quite lack any detailed understanding of the environment, mechanisms, process and timing by which they developed.

Therefore, if life were found to be commonplace as you suggest it might, it would strongly indicate that the laws of nature were so attuned as to encourage, perhaps assure, its emergence whenever conditions were right - and that such conditions were not too stringent.