CAVEAT: I did come up with this argument on my own, but I have a strong feeling that someone else has stated it before (on or off site). Nonetheless, I thought it would be a good topic.
I have seen numerous calculations on the odds of life arising due to abiogenesis (chemicals to life). Theses calc's use ocean volumes, land mass, intertidal zones, hydrothermal vents, etc. to calculate odds of this or that. However, should we be focusing on the odds of life occuring on Earth and ignoring the greater question of can life occur in the Universe.
DNAunion posted that for life to arise in an RNA world the amount of RNA needed might equal the mass of the Earth. Whether or not this is correct is not what I am arguing. However, what if there was enough RNA naturally occuring in the Universe to equal the mass of the Earth. Then, according to the theory, life could occur in the Universe somewhere. So, are we actually painting the bulls-eye around the arrow when we devise theories that only take into account the conditions here on Earth?
For analogy only, if we give each planet a lottery ticket with the odds of winning 1 in 50 million and we gave out 50 million tickets, we would expect one of those planets to win. Still, the chances of winning for each planet is still 1 in 50 million. Now, one in 50 million is not that great a number when looking across the vast amount of galaxies in the universe, this might equate to one ticket per galaxy.
So, to say that the chances of life arising on Earth through abiogenesis (chemicals to life) may not be as great if we look at the bigger picture. It might equate better to "what were the chances of me being born in (insert home town)". The chances of you being born where you were to whom you were are 1 in 1, it occurred.
Well, just something I had to post and it really didn't fit anywhere else. Feel free to rip into it, I'm not that attached to this argument.
™ Version 4.2