Ha! Have we lost your point, or the time necessary to transition from prokaryote to eukaryote? That was a long rabbit hole...
But I have a question: Isn't the better argument if the odds of life being created is1:1?*
It seems to me that we get caught up in the idea of "life" meaning "life as we know it." That's like stating the odds against predicting 1,000,000 upcoming spins of a roulette wheel (or 10,000 roulette wheels). The odds of doing that are staggering. Yet when looking back after the wheel has spun, the results aren't that amazing - it's just a fact that they occurred the way they did. The outcome only seems preordained if you assume that no other results were possible. Any one of the results would be equally likely, assuming every aspect of the trial was truly random.
So in one evolutionary outcome, we get plesiosaurs AND dolphins. In another, we get sarkybunkels and liberdytoots. In either case, the curious and analytical being is wondering what are the odds that things could have possibly happened exactly the way they did, instead of accepting that they way it happened was completely random and any other outcome was equally possible, although in only a few would either dolphins or sarkybunkels exist. Or am I missing something in the mathematical concepts being applied to the odds against life evolving by chance alone?
* Of course, if life didn't exist, this would all be a moot point.
