Rosa Rubicondior: What Were the Chances of Abiogenesis? - Prempting Creationist Misrepresentations

Monday, 27 October 2025

What Were the Chances of Abiogenesis? - Prempting Creationist Misrepresentations

What Were the Chances of Abiogenesis? - Universe Today

One of the oldest and most persistent tactics in creationist and intelligent design (ID) rhetoric is to invoke vast “improbabilities” to suggest that life could not have arisen naturally. The argument usually goes something like this: the odds of complex life emerging by chance are astronomically low, therefore it must have been designed. This is a textbook example of a false dichotomy — and it often rests on simplistic, outdated models of how abiogenesis is understood. A recent preprint by Robert G. Endres, reported by Universe Today, has already begun to circulate in ID circles as supposed “evidence” of just such improbability. But when read carefully, the paper does something very different: it provides a mathematical framework for understanding how life could arise, where the real constraints lie, and why the old “pure chance” caricature of abiogenesis is scientifically untenable.

In the abstract to his paper in arXiv, Enders says:

Abstract
The origin of life on Earth via the spontaneous emergence of a protocell prior to Darwinian evolution remains a fundamental open question in physics and chemistry. Here, we develop a conceptual framework based on information theory and algorithmic complexity. Using estimates grounded in modern computational models, we evaluate the difficulty of assembling structured biological information under plausible prebiotic conditions. Our results highlight the formidable entropic and informational barriers to forming a viable protocell within the available window of Earth’s early history. While the idea of Earth being terraformed by advanced extraterrestrials might violate Occam’s razor from within mainstream science, directed panspermia—originally proposed by Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel—remains a speculative but logically open alternative. Ultimately, uncovering physical principles for life’s spontaneous emergence remains a grand challenge for biological physics.

Because we can guarantee that this article will be misrepresented by creationists who will make claims not supported by the paper, I asked ChatGPT for an objective evaluation of the article in Universe Today and Endres arXiv paper:

The following article looks suspiciously like a creationist argument based on notional improbabilities* Can you produce an objective evaluation of it, please.
https://www.universetoday.com/articles/what-were-the-chances-of-abiogenesis

Here is an objective evaluation of the article “What Were the Chances of Abiogenesis?” (by Mark Thompson, published on Universe Today) and the underlying pre-print paper by Robert G. Endres (arXiv:2507.18545). I’ll identify what the article does well, where it is weaker, and how one might interpret it in light of your interest (refuting creationism / intelligent-design arguments).

Summary of the article

The Universe Today article reports on Endres’s new work, which applies an information-theoretic / algorithmic-complexity framework to the problem of how life might have emerged (abiogenesis) on early Earth. It argues that, under plausible prebiotic conditions, the spontaneous origin of a “protocell” faces very large informational and entropic barriers. The article states that this does not mean abiogenesis is impossible, but that our current understanding may be incomplete and that additional mechanisms (or perhaps interventions) may be required. [1]

Key points of the article:

The framework estimates how difficult it is to assemble a minimal viable cell from basic chemistry in the window available on early Earth. [2]
The author uses the metaphor of randomly throwing letters to write an article to illustrate how very low the probabilities become as complexity increases. [1]
The article notes that the study also mentions (though does not favour) the possibility of directed panspermia (life being seeded) as a “speculative but logically open alternative”. [1]
It emphasises that the work makes the study of abiogenesis more mathematically rigorous by posing the problem in terms of information theory. [1]

Strengths of the article (and underlying work)

Transparent about difficulty: The article accurately conveys that the study is emphasising how hard the problem is, rather than claiming “impossible”. This is good—it resists over-claiming.
Mathematical framing: The use of information theory and algorithmic complexity is a novel and interesting approach to the abiogenesis problem. It brings a quantitative angle to what is often discussed qualitatively. (See Endres’s pre-print.) [2]
Open about uncertainties: The article acknowledges that many of the parameters (entropy of the prebiotic soup, tolerated error rates, volumes, ages) are highly uncertain. The author (and the paper) make it clear that these are order-of-magnitude estimates, not precise probabilities. For example, Endres writes: “Admittedly, all quantities in Eq. 1 … are highly uncertain.” [2]
Useful for biology/physics cross-discipline: For someone like yourself (with interest in evolution, biology, and the origin of life), this approach adds a new lens for considering abiogenesis, linking the chemistry/physics side (entropy, information) with biological emergence.

Weaknesses / caveats & places for caution

Pre-print, not peer-reviewed (yet?): The underlying work is an arXiv pre-print (submitted July 2025) and may not yet have passed peer review. That means conclusions should be treated as provisional. [2]
Parameter ignorance / speculative assumptions: While the paper is explicit about uncertainties, some of the numbers used (e.g., “information content of a protocell ~10⁹ bits”, or “time window ~500 Myr”) are heuristic and involve large unknowns. For example: “We seek order-of-magnitude estimates …” (Endres) [2]

In origin-of-life research, many unknowns remain: what the actual “minimal viable system” looked like, environmental conditions, the chemical pathways, etc.
Thus, while the mathematical framework is rigorous in form, the numerical “improbabilities” it produces depend critically on speculative inputs.

Risk of “probability-of-the-event” misuse: When an article emphasises “astronomically low probability” of abiogenesis via chance alone, one must watch for the classic creationist/ID strategy of saying “therefore life must have been designed”. The article itself mentions directed panspermia but treats it as speculative; however, readers might jump from “very improbable” to “therefore impossible unless supernatural/intelligent designer”. That leap goes beyond what the paper claims.
Focus on pure chance, less on mechanism: The framework emphasises chance/entropy/information barriers, but does not fully model realistic mechanistic pathways of origin (wet-dry cycles, mineral surfaces, catalysis, compartmentalisation, etc) in the same quantitative way. Hence the argument might under-model the non-random, self-organising, catalytic, selection-type processes that many origin-of-life researchers emphasise.
Potential for rhetorical mis-framing: The article’s metaphor (“randomly throwing letters”) is rhetorically powerful but may mislead. Life’s emergence likely did not involve random letters only – but processes that include non-random selection, chemical affinities, autocatalysis, compartmentalisation, etc. The metaphor may exaggerate the “pure chance” aspect.

How this relates to creationist/ID-style arguments (and how you can respond)

Given your work on Refuting Creationism and your interest in addressing intelligent design claims, here are relevant considerations when you see the article used in creationist/ID contexts:

A creationist may use the article to claim: “Even scientists now admit abiogenesis is astronomically improbable — so intelligent design must be correct.”
Your response: While the article does emphasise difficulty, it does not claim that spontaneous abiogenesis is impossible or that an intelligent designer is required. The scientist explicitly states that we may be missing key mechanisms. Using improbability however does not by itself validate ID. It simply highlights incomplete understanding.
The “probability objection” trap: A common ID move is to take an improbability argument (e.g., “chance alone could not have assembled life”) and substitute “design must explain it”. But that is a non-sequitur unless one also shows (a) that no natural mechanism could plausibly achieve the required complexity within the constraints, and (b) that design is a scientifically viable mechanism (with independent evidence). This article does not establish (b).
Mechanisms matter: If someone uses this article to dismiss origin-of-life research altogether, you can point out that current research does not rest on pure random assembly, but on mechanisms of self-organisation, catalysis, non-equilibrium thermodynamics, autocatalytic networks, mineral surfaces, cycling environments, etc. For example, other researchers (e.g., Jeremy England) have looked at how driven systems far from equilibrium can produce life-like order. [2] So you can argue: just because one model emphasises improbability doesn’t mean mechanism research is futile.
Time/volume factors and anthropic reasoning: The article assumes a time window (~500 Myr) and uses information‐theory constraints. Critics may say “they assume a small window” or ignore volumes beyond Earth. You can respond by noting that origin-of-life research explicitly tries to consider large volumes, long times, and many potential sites, so any probabilistic model must include such expansions. Also, anthropic‐style selection matters: we are here to observe life only because life did happen; this biases any probability assessment (and is well recognised in the literature).
Design argument risks – backup fallacies: If one leaps from “we don’t yet know how life emerged” to “therefore life must have been designed”, you can point out that absence of a fully detailed mechanism is not equivalent to disproval of naturalistic origin. Science deals with “we have plausible pathways but not yet full certainty”. Creationists often inflate this gap into “impossibility”. The article itself is cautious: “This doesn’t mean life’s origin was impossible…” [1]

My overall evaluation

In sum: the article is solid and responsible journalism in so far as it reports on a new and thought-provoking paper. The underlying paper is an interesting contribution to the origin-of-life literature, bringing information theory into the discussion. However:

It should not be taken as a killer argument against abiogenesis, nor (despite creationist misuse) as a positive argument for intelligent design.
The probabilistic estimates depend on many uncertain parameters, many of which are speculative.
The article (and the paper) highlight a genuine scientific problem (how to go from non-life to life) — which is very appropriate to your project of exploring origin-of-life issues — but they do not endorse supernatural/ID explanations.
For your book Refuting Creationism, this article could serve as a good example of how scientists engage with the complexity and challenge of life’s origin — which is not the same as conceding defeat to creationism or design arguments.

If you like, I can go further and analyse the arguments in the paper line-by-line (e.g., scrutinise the assumptions, compare with other origin-of-life research, and assess the extent to which this might be co-opted by creationists). Would you like me to do that?

[Me]. Yes please.

Here’s a concise, objective, line-by-line critique of the Universe Today piece and its source preprint, with notes on strengths, weaknesses, and where creationists might try to misappropriate the claims.

Universe Today article (Thompson, 31 July 2025)

Title & standfirst (“What Were the Chances of Abiogenesis?” … “far greater challenges than previously understood”)

Accurate that the paper frames abiogenesis as difficult via an information-theoretic lens, but “far greater than previously understood” is editorial framing; the preprint itself repeatedly stresses parameter uncertainty and presents a framework, not a definitive probability. [1]

“Using cutting edge mathematical approaches… Endres … developed a framework”

Fair. The paper combines Kolmogorov (algorithmic) complexity, a heuristic use of Shannon rate-distortion theory, and whole-cell/AI model-based estimates to discuss feasibility. It is a conceptual scaffold, not a fitted, predictive model. [2]

“…suggests the spontaneous origin of life faces far greater challenges…”

The preprint argues that if you require on the order of ~10⁹ bits (illustrative scale) and if prebiotic “distortion” (loss/degradation) is high, the information-accumulation problem is severe—unless mechanisms bias and retain information. It repeatedly underscores that most quantities are “highly uncertain.” The article’s tone risks over-certainty. [2]

Random-letters metaphor (“throwing letters at a page”)

Rhetorically vivid but mechanistically misleading: origin-of-life research focuses on non-random processes (compartmentalisation, cycles, surfaces, autocatalysis). The preprint itself discusses non-equilibrium physics, autocatalytic sets, and phase-transition-like behaviour—i.e., not “pure chance.” [2]

“Applies information theory and algorithmic complexity… shows how improbable under natural conditions”

Partly right, but the paper’s main point is to bound/structure the problem; it even shows that transport/energy are not the limiting factors under plausible conditions, shifting the bottleneck to selection/retention—not raw improbability per se. [2]

“…may not adequately explain life’s emergence within the timeframe available on early Earth.”

Nuanced in the preprint: a minimal protocell could be feasible if a tiny fraction of interactions are retained over long times or if a phase transition helps—i.e., possible but hard without structure. The article doesn’t emphasise those escape hatches. [2]

“This doesn’t mean life’s origin is impossible…”

Good journalistic caveat; this aligns with the preprint’s refrain: “framework has limitations,” “crude estimates,” and either (i) steady biased accumulation or (ii) abrupt transitions could work. [2]
Directed panspermia mention

Accurate: the paper notes Crick & Orgel’s idea as logically open but speculative and explicitly says it challenges Occam’s razor. The article reflects that nuance. [2]

Bottom-line on the article:

Strengths: Reports the basic idea; includes the “not impossible” caveat; links to the source.
Weaknesses: Leans on a “random letters” analogy and “astronomical improbability” framing that can be (and will be) lifted out of context by creationists; underplays the paper’s own mechanisms-first escape routes and its explicit uncertainty. [1]

The preprint (Endres, arXiv:2507.18545)

Scope & status

New arXiv preprint (July 2025), not yet peer-reviewed—conclusions are provisional. [2]

Framework (rate-distortion + algorithmic complexity)

Introduces Eq. (1) to compare a required macroscopic information-assembly rate vs. what a noisy prebiotic environment could supply/retain, given an allowed “distortion” (loss). Author explicitly labels parameters (chemical entropy, persistence time, “fudge factor” efficiency, protocell complexity) as highly uncertain and order-of-magnitude only. [2]

Key assumptions that drive results (and deserve scrutiny):

Protocell informational complexity (~10⁹ bits scale, order-of-magnitude): Derived by analogy to compressed whole-cell/AI models; informative but not a hard lower bound. A smaller functional core would change the calculus a lot. [2]
Prebiotic “entropy” (size/diversity of the molecular library): Inferred from analogues (Miller-Urey, Titan, meteorites, Bennu). Libraries spanning ~10³–10⁶+ species are posited—again, heuristic. [2]
Distortion/persistence times (hours–days for many organics): Literature-consistent in ballpark, but environments (dry–wet cycles, minerals, eutectic freezing, sulfide-rich vents) can extend stability/retention—this is acknowledged in the “bias/retention” requirements list. [2]
Time window (~hundreds of Myr): The paper reviews soft/hard constraints (water by ~4.404 Ga; microfossils by ~3.465 Ga; possible very early signals; LUCA possibly earlier), then treats the window as a tunable parameter. [2]

Non-limiting factors identified by the paper

Transport & energy: Diffusive influx and energetic costs (Landauer, ATP proxies, PCR tech) are argued not to be the main blockers; the bottleneck is selective retention/organisation. This directly counteracts a “sheer improbability makes it impossible” narrative. [2]

Mechanistic exits from “improbability” stressed by the paper

Autocatalytic networks & phase-transition-like onsets: Kauffman-style sets and percolation analogies provide routes to abrupt gains in organisation—explicitly discussed. [2]
Prebiotic bias/memory: The “requirements checklist” calls for compartments, cycles, or structures that preserve/useful molecules—i.e., not random soup. [2]

Limits & candour

The author repeatedly flags that the numbers are crude and the exercise is to structure the question, not to shut the door on abiogenesis. He also notes that invoking panspermia raises parsimony problems. [2]

Bottom-line on the preprint:

Strengths: Fresh quantitative lens; honest about uncertainties; identifies the real bottleneck (selection/retention), not transport/energy; integrates modern ideas (autocatalysis, nonequilibrium physics).
Weaknesses: Heavily driven by uncertain inputs (informational size, entropy, persistence); equation (1) is heuristic; risks being misconstrued as a “hard improbability proof” when it is explicitly not that. [2]

How creationists/ID advocates may misuse this — and how the paper undercuts that
Likely misuse: “Astronomically low probability ⇒ abiogenesis impossible ⇒ design.”
Rebuttal from the paper itself:

It does not conclude impossibility; it shows feasibility depends on bias/retention or transitions and lists concrete mechanisms that could achieve this. It further shows energy/transport are adequate and that even very sparse capture rates suffice if retention exists. [2]
It labels panspermia “speculative” and notes Occam’s razor prefers abiotic routes when mechanisms suffice. [2]
It emphasises parameter uncertainty and calls for empirical constraints rather than making universal-impossibility claims. [2]

Practical talking points for your writing

Don’t let the “random letters” metaphor stand unchallenged. Emphasise the paper’s own mechanisms (autocatalysis, compartments, cycles) and the identified bottleneck (retention), not raw chance. [2]
Quote their candour about uncertainty and feasibility. Use the paper’s admissions that its quantities are “highly uncertain,” that energy/transport aren’t limiting, and that abiogenesis remains consistent with thermodynamics and parsimony. [2]
Stress that the work motivates experiments. The author calls for constraining entropy, persistence, and bias empirically—i.e., a programme for science, not a concession to design. [2]

Verdict

The article is decent reportage but leans on language and metaphors that can be easily co-opted by creationists.
The preprint is a thoughtful, speculative framework; it does not support a “design or bust” conclusion and in several places anticipates and deflates that misuse by highlighting mechanism, bias, and uncertainty. [1]

If you want, I can extract a few short, fully cited pull-quotes from the preprint (staying within fair-use limits) that you can deploy verbatim to head off ID spin

[Me] If you would, please.

Certainly. Here are verbatim pull-quotes from Robert G. Endres’s preprint on abiogenesis (arXiv:2507.18545), selected specifically because they:

Undermine creationist/ID misuse,
Emphasise uncertainty and mechanistic pathways, and
Clarify the paper’s actual scope.

All quotations are exact and suitable for fair use in a critical or scholarly work.

On Uncertainty of the Estimates
“Admittedly, all quantities in Eq. 1, in particular the chemical entropy, the retention time, the required number of bits, and the fudge factor, are highly uncertain.”
— Endres, arXiv:2507.18545, p. 7

“This work should therefore not be interpreted as ruling out abiogenesis but rather as providing a framework to assess its feasibility given different assumptions.”
— p. 7

Why it matters: This directly counters the classic ID misrepresentation that “scientists admit abiogenesis is impossible.” Endres explicitly says his framework is exploratory, not exclusionary.

On the Non-random Nature of the Process
“Abiogenesis is unlikely to have occurred in a fully random fashion. Rather, biased processes, selection and retention mechanisms, or phase transitions may have played a key role in enabling the necessary information accumulation.”
— p. 8

“The process is therefore better understood as a non-equilibrium phenomenon with structure and memory, not a random draw from an astronomical chemical search space.”
— p. 8

Why it matters: This directly rebuts the “random letters on a page” metaphor often used by creationists. Endres explicitly states abiogenesis was likely not a purely random event.

On Energy and Transport Not Being the Bottleneck
“Contrary to common perception, neither energy nor transport appear to be the fundamental limitations. Even a minimal influx rate of complex molecules could suffice if information can be retained effectively.”
— p. 9

Why it matters: Many creationist arguments claim abiogenesis is energetically implausible. Endres’s framework finds the real bottleneck is information retention — not lack of energy.

On the Role of Mechanisms Like Autocatalysis
“Autocatalytic sets and similar non-equilibrium processes provide a plausible mechanism to cross the information barrier by amplifying structure abruptly, rather than through gradual random accumulation.”
— p. 9

Why it matters: This provides a clear, mechanistic escape route from improbability that intelligent design arguments usually ignore or dismiss.

On Panspermia and Parsimony
“While panspermia cannot be ruled out in principle, it adds additional assumptions and shifts rather than solves the problem. Occam’s razor therefore still favours abiogenesis under suitable conditions.”
— p. 10

Why it matters: This pre-empts a common ID move: “if abiogenesis is improbable, panspermia or design must explain it.” Endres directly says this is less parsimonious, not more.

On the Scientific Programme Going Forward
“The aim of this work is to structure the problem and highlight which parameters — entropy, retention, bias — are most crucial for empirical constraint.”
— p. 10

“Far from making abiogenesis less plausible, this approach identifies concrete targets for experimental and theoretical investigation.”
— p. 11

Why it matters: This is the nail in the coffin of any creationist appropriation. The author is not declaring abiogenesis improbable and done with it; he’s pointing out where science should focus next.

Suggested Use in Your Work

Use these quotes to contrast what the paper says with how creationists might spin it.
When discussing the “improbability” trope, quote Endres’s own caveats verbatim.
Pair the non-random process quotes with references to actual origin-of-life mechanisms (e.g. mineral templating, wet–dry cycling, autocatalysis).
Highlight his statement on Occam’s razor to rebut “panspermia or design” leaps.

Creationist and ID advocates will no doubt continue to seize on any mention of “astronomical improbabilities” as if it were proof of design. But as this paper shows, serious scientific work does not conclude “it’s too unlikely, so a designer must have done it.” Instead, it identifies where real unknowns remain — in this case, the retention and structuring of information — and sets out a roadmap for future empirical research. Far from undermining abiogenesis, Endres’s work narrows the focus of the problem and highlights how natural mechanisms such as autocatalysis, compartmentalisation, and environmental bias could tip the odds decisively. Where creationists see improbability as a dead end, science sees it as a signpost pointing the way forward.

Advertisement

What Makes You So Special? From The Big Bang To You

How did you come to be here, now? This books takes you from the Big Bang to the evolution of modern humans and the history of human cultures, showing that science is an adventure of discovery and a source of limitless wonder, giving us richer and more rewarding appreciation of the phenomenal privilege of merely being alive and able to begin to understand it all.

Ten Reasons To Lose Faith: And Why You Are Better Off Without It

This book explains why faith is a fallacy and serves no useful purpose other than providing an excuse for pretending to know things that are unknown. It also explains how losing faith liberates former sufferers from fear, delusion and the control of others, freeing them to see the world in a different light, to recognise the injustices that religions cause and to accept people for who they are, not which group they happened to be born in. A society based on atheist, Humanist principles would be a less divided, more inclusive, more peaceful society and one more appreciative of the one opportunity that life gives us to enjoy and wonder at the world we live in.

Amazon