What is more likely, one man winning a lottery with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of winning OR one man winning 3 lotteries each with a 1/1000 chance of winning? What is the natural human inclination to think in this situation?

They're equally likely, unless you add extra specific conditions. And?

Also, why on earth would you appeal to "natural human inclination" for probability estimates when that has proven time and again terribly inaccurate?

Actually, if that were the case, 0.999... (where ... means “repeating”) would NOT equal 1.0, but it’s been mathematically proven that it does, so...

That's not a proof that mindbogglingly improbable is equal to impossible. That's a proof that 0.999... is another way of writing 1.

The key aspect is that it is specifically infinitely repeating 9. Saying "infinitely improbable" may be equivalent to "impossible" but is again vastly different from "definable but very largely improbable". The chances of life emerging randomly is squarely in that last category. Comparing infinite to finite numbers always makes the scale of the finite number utterly irrelevant.

It’s not because of their abundance, but because of how they operate distinctly from “similar compounds” and “other elements”.

There's nothing special about those elements and compounds, chemically silicone is a perfectly viable analogue to biological carbon and ammonia could fill many of the roles of water in strong hydrogen bonding and proton exchange, It's just the evolutionary fine tuning necessary for making complex enzymes work that stops them being immediately interchangable.

And to your example of the rather unique trait that water expands as it freezes: That is actively detrimental to life, it's the cause of frostbite and the death of many plants, and of no benefit in any molecular biology process that I know of. As a "design" trait it is not just flawed it's counter productive. But as a random trait it's just unfortunate.

What is more likely, one man winning a lottery with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of winning OR one man winning 3 lotteries each with a 1/1000 chance of winning? What is the natural human inclination to think in this situation?

They're equally likely, unless you add extra specific conditions. And?

Also, why on earth would you appeal to "natural human inclination" for probability estimates when that has proven time and again terribly inaccurate?

Actually, if that were the case, 0.999... (where ... means “repeating”) would NOT equal 1.0, but it’s been mathematically proven that it does, so...

That's not a proof that mindbogglingly improbable is equal to impossible. That's a proof that 0.999... is another way of writing 1.

The key aspect is that it is specifically infinitely repeating 9. Saying "infinitely improbable" may be equivalent to "impossible" is again vastly different from "definable but very largely improbable". The chances of life emerging randomly is squarely in that last category. Comparing infinite to finite numbers always makes the scale of the finite number utterly irrelevant.

It’s not because of their abundance, but because of how they operate distinctly from “similar compounds” and “other elements”.

There's nothing special about those elements and compounds, chemically silicone is a perfectly viable analogue to biological carbon and ammonia could fill many of the roles of water in strong hydrogen bonding and proton exchange, It's just the evolutionary fine tuning necessary for making complex enzymes work that stops them being immediately interchangable.

And to your example of the rather unique trait that water expands as it freezes: That is actively detrimental to life, it's the cause of frostbite and the death of many plants, and of no benefit in any molecular biology process that I know of. As a "design" trait it is not just flawed it's counter productive. But as a random trait it's just unfortunate.

What is more likely, one man winning a lottery with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of winning OR one man winning 3 lotteries each with a 1/1000 chance of winning? What is the natural human inclination to think in this situation?

They're equally likely, unless you add extra specific conditions. And?

Also, why on earth would you appeal to "natural human inclination" for probability estimates when that has proven time and again terribly inaccurate?

Actually, if that were the case, 0.999... (where ... means “repeating”) would NOT equal 1.0, but it’s been mathematically proven that it does, so...

That's not a proof that mindbogglingly improbable is equal to impossible. That's a proof that 0.999... is another way of writing 1.

The key aspect is that it is specifically infinitely repeating 9. Saying "infinitely improbable" may be equivalent to "impossible" is again vastly different from "definable but very largely improbable". The chances of life emerging randomly is squarely in that last category. Comparing infinite to finite numbers always makes the scale of the finite number utterly irrelevant.

It’s not because of their abundance, but because of how they operate distinctly from “similar compounds” and “other elements”.

There's nothing special about those elements and compounds, chemically silicone is a perfectly viable analogue to biological carbon and ammonia could fill many of the roles of water in strong hydrogen bonding and proton exchange, It's just the evolutionary fine tuning necessary for making complex enzymes work that stops them being immediately interchangable.

And to your example of the rather unique trait that water expands as it freezes: That is actively detrimental to life, it's the cause of frostbite and the death of many plants, and of no benefit in any molecular biology process that I know of. As a "design" trait it is not just flawed it's counter productive.

What is more likely, one man winning a lottery with a 1 in 1,000,000,000 chance of winning OR one man winning 3 lotteries each with a 1/1000 chance of winning? What is the natural human inclination to think in this situation?

They're equally likely, unless you add extra specific conditions. And?

Also, why on earth would you appeal to "natural human inclination" for probability estimates when that has proven time and again terribly inaccurate?

Actually, if that were the case, 0.999... (where ... means “repeating”) would NOT equal 1.0, but it’s been mathematically proven that it does, so...

That's not a proof that mindbogglingly improbable is equal to impossible. That's a proof that 0.999... is another way of writing 1.

The key aspect is that it is specifically infinitely repeating 9. Saying "infinitely improbable" may be equivalent to "impossible" is again vastly different from "definable but very largely improbable". The chances of life emerging randomly is squarely in that last category. Comparing infinite to finite numbers always makes the scale of the finite number utterly irrelevant.

It’s not because of their abundance, but because of how they operate distinctly from “similar compounds” and “other elements”.

There's nothing special about those elements and compounds, chemically silicone is a perfectly viable analogue to biological carbon and ammonia could fill many of the roles of water in strong hydrogen bonding and proton exchange. It's just the evolutionary fine tuning necessary for making complex enzymes work that stops them being immediately interchangable.