In article <4vfvkr$446@news>, Larry Adams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >Are the odds of inanimate materials coallescing to form life greater or lesser >than those for the appearance of the human eye?
The first is more likely than the second. I can say this categorically because the second is absolutely dependent on the first...unless the probability that evolution would lead to humans with eyes is 100%, in which case the two would be equally likely.
As far as the probability that inanimate materials would coalesce to form life goes... who knows? First off, the question assumes a false dichotomy between inanimate materials and what we now consider to be life. Secondly, it assumes that we actually have insight into these probabilities. Unless you are willing to offer verifiable alternative hypotheses, I think the best we can say is that life and human eyes *have* evolved - and wouldn't it be cool to know as much of the story as we can?