Since it is based on evidence and reason and logic it is sound. Please support with real data where I err. You can't.
You say I can't. You say so with so much confidence that you apparently aren't even familiar with the scholarship done in this area long before your meager attempts at it.
You are only guessing about what scholarship I am familiar.
But you contend that you know more than all these scientists. You uniquely understand that the whole equation is moot because one term, "the probability that life actually arises on these planets" is zero.
Not zero. The number of planets and so forth are indeed inconsequential compared to the 10^81 atoms in this universe and the 10^45 interactions per second possible. Surly you should understand that all the material in the universe and all the interactions have been considered. If life occurred spontaneously anywhere in this universe by chance or any form of chance modified by chemic constraints. Some sort of boundary conditions have to be in play in order to remove the hundreds of orders of magnitude of possible chemical combinations most of which are far more favored than any combination that results in even the simplest known self-replicating polymer. Without such boundary conditions material mechanisms are ruled out.
You don't believe that. You know it. Because you have the "facts" and "data" to prove it. You. Reasoned Faith. All by yourself posses the truth undiscovered by all these other scientists.
A better fact to ponder is why you do believe life is simple to spontaneously arise from non-life. Just what evidence do you hold to support this belief. Surly you are familiar with the known set of self-replicating polymers (bio and non-bio) in order to hold such a belief.
The book I referenced in an above post, Origins, devotes the entire Chapter 15 to the question of life originating on Earth. The book was written by Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and director of New York City's Hayden Planetarium. He presents several models for how life could have originated in tide pools at the ocean's edge, or superheated vents on the ocean floors. "For now," Tyson writes, "the betting is about even. Experts on the origin of life have challenged the assertion that life's oldest forms lived at high temperatures, because current methods for placing organisms at different points along the brances of the tree of life remain the subject of debate."
I have read this material. It is not based on chemical affinities or reaction kinetics. It is not based on any chemical processes. It is not based on any process at all. It is a narrative supported by speculation. Good science does not operate on speculation. Review the material again and find for us any observation that would indicate these speculative conditions introduce chemic boundary conditions that reduce the number of permutations possible in deriving self-replicating polymers in any of these environments.
How odd. No mention of Reasoned Faith's devastating critique of the whole business.
Here's what the interactive Nova website that I linked to has to say about your term:
"Scientists are divided on this question, though most tend to think that life is more likely to appear than not, given the right conditions."
The interesting phrase is
"tend to think". It is pure speculation.
Here's another site on your term, which you have convinced yourself is zero:
The next factor, fl, is the fraction of potentially habitable planets that actually give rise to life. That one we seem to know something about, because the chemists have found a multitude of chemical pathways to the origins of life.
It is not a true statement that chemists have found even one chemical pathways to the origins of life. This too is pure speculation. If you disagree, please provide one that is confirmed by testing even the subprocesses (if the entire process worked, scientists would have already declared that man has made life from scratch). Remember the scientific method requires observation, testing and repetition and not speculation.
In contrast, observation, experimentation and testing of chemic processes will lead the chemist to conclude that the probability of life arising from non-life spontaneously is far less than 1 in 10^400. It will remain this way until and unless we find some boundary conditions that constrain the range of chemical combinations derived in each of the vast number of required steps.
Life seems inevitable on any planet with suitable characteristics. And what are those? They seem to be very simple: liquid water, organic molecules and a source of energy.
This statement is the presupposition that drives the speculation you so blindly accept. It is unimaginably simplistic and spectacularly false.
The real question is not whether life arises, but how it really happens. The present consensus is that life does arise in a body of water, perhaps in Darwin's "warm little pond," or the deep-sea vents, the froth of ocean waves - these have all been suggested - or on the molecular templates of clay minerals. We think that faction is close to one.
What is the basis of this consensus? I will tell you, there is no basis. It is a conclusion that follows directly from the presupposition above.
My two references show the radical disagreement among scientists simply because there is a radical lack of real evidence with regard to the terms. But none of them make your claim. In fact, Francis Drake thinks you are just about 100 percent wrong. Oh, and who is he? He's professor emeritus of astronomy and astrophysics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.
And the key is that he
thinks I am wrong. He can offer nothing to demonstrate is prejudice. tell you what, let's have a look at just one of these supposed chemical pathways mentioned above. I will show you just how the narrative is nothing more than a house of cards at this stage. You choose the pathway.
You?
I have degrees in Chemistry and and Chemical Engineering. I have completed extensive studies in organic and biochemistry and biology. I have substantial training in mathematics, physics, physical chemistry, and computer science. Dr. Drake likely knows a great deal more about astronomy, astrophysics and physics but that is likely where it ends.
