David Kipping

It could be any of those numbers.

And the challenge is we just have no...

rigorous reason to expect why 90% is any, because we're talking about a probability for probability.

Is 90% more a priori likely than 10 to the power minus 20?

Yeah, but I would say you're describing a different process.

I mean, maybe I'm at fault for separating these two processes, but to me, you're describing basically natural selection evolution at that point.

Whereas I'm really describing abiogenesis, which is to me a separate distinct process.

Right.

So I think I would say... I just twist that question around and say, you're saying, why is it a different process?

And I would say, why shouldn't it be a different process?

Which isn't really a good defense, except to say that we have...

We have knowledge of how natural selection evolution works.

We think we understand that process.

We have almost no information about the earliest stages of how life emerged on our planet.

It may be that you're right and it is a part of a continuum.

It may be that it is also a distinct process

improbable set of circumstances that led to the emergence of life.

As a scientist, I'm just trying to be open-minded to both possibilities.

If I assert that life must be everywhere,

To me, you run the risk of experimenter's bias.