2 ms·
You sound like you want to believe that the emergence of life is difficult (by comparing it to winning in a lottery). Then the N=1 evidence that we actually hav
by sampo 12y ago
You sound like you want to believe that the emergence of life is difficult (by comparing it to winning in a lottery). Then the N=1 evidence that we actually have says, the emergence of life was easy (or, at least, quick). But you brush this off by saying blah, it's just N=1. But the evidence for your emergence-of-life-is-difficult is N=0.
Granted, N=1 is not much. But it's still more than N=0.
- placebo 12y agoI don't want to believe anything until there's evidence for it. My intention was to show there's a problem with the logic that assumes it's easy when there is not enough evidence to support either that it is easy or that it is difficult. The example of the lottery was meant to illustrate how it could be difficult while seeming easy, not to convince anyone that it is in fact difficult. I wouldn't agree with someone claiming that the development of life is difficult for exactly the same reasons.