upvote
I doubt a replicator came out of thin air. It seems more likely, at least to me, that we started with constructors, that created primitive sequences.

Imagine you have molecules that can form spontaneously, like gliders in Conway's Game of Life. You may have several different molecules that are capable of helping to create one another -- an autocatalytic set.

Eventually this could result in more complex chains, and eventually a self replicating molecule can arise.

Imagine slamming a bunch of gliders together to make a machine that replicates more gliders. It's possible! Not likely, but there are so many variables that can influence the environment substantially. It's not like there was a giant homogeneous soup. Parts from over here and over there would form differently and when they meet, amazing things can happen.

In the Game of Life, this spontaneous event is extremely unlikely, astronomically unlikely.

Unlike Game of Life, the real world has a few advantages that improve performance. For one, it's less fragile. Bonds are much stronger and collisions don't cause everything to break. Another advantage is that bonds are attractive: molecules can rotate and turn to snap together strongly. Gliders just explode violently. And finally, the real world is very dense. We're talking trillions of molecules mixing around millions of times per second per microdroplet. Compound that with a few hundred million years... it certainly doesn't feel as surprising as you might expect.

If there were a highly advanced alien race watching earth over a long period of time, it might be interesting, but not unexpected, that suddenly an Eiffel tower springs forth from the surface of the planet, erected by intelligent organisms.

reply
The simple combinatorial explosion criticism feels reductive to me. It's exceedingly unlikely that a single "self-replicating RNA molecule" formed independently by chance and then propagated.

Let's say that you have some RNA soup with some ribozymes some of which weakly encourage some reaction involving other RNA molecules. The occurrence of a cycle of reinforcing reactions might be sufficient to build a crude evolutionary ratchet.

In fact the "cycle of reactions" perspective feels a bit more robust to me since it allows for the proto-replication process to take place over a longer period of time and over larger areas.

reply
Yeah, it's more probable a priory, but it still can be false. For example, such reaction chains might not lead to a sufficiently probable increase in complexity.

Core wars (1984) strongly favored short replicators, so at least in some possible universes complexity growth is not a given.

reply
Life didn't have to start on Earth. It could have started on any one of an unbounded number of worlds. It's only in retrospect that this world seems special.

What's the probability of spontaneous formation across an infinite universe?

reply
In an infinite universe even events with probability 0 can happen[1], but it's hard to find this explanation satisfactory. Any hypothesis that raises probability of abiogenesis to make it likely to happen at least in the observable universe looks more satisfactory than "but it could have happened anyway in an infinite universe despite being totally improbable."

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely

reply
If you mean panspermia specifically in respect to earth it's a lot more bounded in space and time to the parts that were close enough to interact with earth, but if not then yes there is probably anything that can be represented by atoms out there somewhere or other.
reply