3 ms·
What you're describing is one possible resolution and part of what's interesting. A very big open question is "which, if any, of the known factors are wildly ra
by killthebuddha 2y ago
What you're describing is one possible resolution and part of what's interesting. A very big open question is "which, if any, of the known factors are wildly rarer than we think?". Another possible resolution is that most of our estimates are actually ok and there's some other variable that's going to whack us on the head at some point.
- mewpmewp2 2y agoI just don't get how anyone can go past the idea that maybe it required freak N amount of specific chemical reactions to happen in a row for the first lifeform and without knowing N the odds could just simply be anything. It seems as if people seem to assume that odds of first life form occuring are high and basically just a matter of time, which doesn't make sense to me.
- gilmore606 2y agoPeople go past that idea by noticing that it happened on Earth almost as soon as it possibly could have happened. If we just got incredibly lucky, you'd think the planet would have sat around a while before the big stroke of luck, but it didn't. This is fairly suggestive that abiogenesis is not that unlikely.
- mewpmewp2 2y agoYou can't make any such conclusion from a single event.