4 ms·

the second sentence does not support the last one. The last one is independent and known as the anthroposophic principle. I.e. even if it was extremely unlikely

the second sentence does not support the last one. The last one is independent and known as the anthroposophic principle. I.e. even if it was extremely unlikely by some measure, it still happened. Whereas there's no indication whether 10e24 stars were a number far past the goal post, or relevant at all on your back of the envelope. It rather seems that you (and the 4500-6000°C comment) were commiting to a fallacy of large numbers. You might as well write a friggin' fantastillion, unimaginable, zomg!, and you wojld still convince roughly the same gaillion number of people. But it's good to hear the details. 4000-6000 doesn't sound much at all in years for me for example, but it used to.

Jetrel 6y ago
For what it's worth, the classic Drake Equation is that old "back of the envelope" calculation they put together to try to ask this very question - what's the likelihood life evolved? The problem with the drake equation is it had several variables for which we had no flippin idea what the values were. For example, supposing there are a bajillion stars (we know that much), then we have to multiply against how likely it is for those stars to have a planet - and at the time, the likelihood of planets was completely unknown. That at least, is something that's changed in the last decade, thanks to new telescopes. We've addressed one of the Drake Equation's big unknowns: we now can hazard a guess that planets are extremely likely. Sadly there are enough other unknowns that we still can't make any sort of conclusions, but at least the betting odds are going up.