How did you approach the paper? What factors seem most important in thinking about this issue?

What different people said about the probability of the emergence of life.

Implications of origin of life theories for etl.

Answering question of origins answers question of etl.

Why is considering the details surrounding the origin of life important for the extraterrestrial life debate?

If we know how we originated, we can apply this elsewhere:

     By knowing how we originated, it might bring us much closer to determining if there is life elsewhere in the universe.  We are starting to find new, more distant planets with our advancing technology so it is only a matter of time before we find and Earth-like planet that might be suitable for life.  By knowing what produced us, we could tell if life is/has been/or will be on another Earth-like planet in the universe. Also, if we know how we originated, we might be able to apply that knowledge to the creation of new organisms, such as new types of bacteria that we can engineer to assist with various functions (such as medicine).

Whether our emergence is due to chance or inevitability (determinism?)

What is our significance in the universe? Are we ordinary, in an average spot in the universe, or are we "special" or unique? Are there are too many variables in the study of the Origin of Life to make a definitive answer? Even with a definitive naturalistic scenario, we are still uncertain about conditions on other planets that might make this possible. We might be able to turn to scientific advances in the future to shed light on this. New ways to gather information or travel, for example, could allow us to look at other planets in the universe under a finer microscope.

What is the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis and the Miller-Urey experiment? What sort of conditions are presumed necessary for the origin of life on Earth?

In order for life to emerge on Earth, biological molecules must have formed from inorganic materials. The Oparin-Haldane hypothesis was a theory written separately by Alexander Oparin in 1924 and JBS Haldane in 1929.  They agreed that the atmosphere in early Earth must have been mostly hydrogen and that organics must have been formed in said atmosphere.

The Miller-Urey experiment was an experiment performed in 1953 in which they took the main elements thought to be found in early Earth's atmosphere--water vapor, methane, hydrogen, and ammonia--and ran electric current through it to simulate lightning.  After several days of running the tests, there was a brown goo found in the trap which contained amino acids, many of which were found on the meteorites which contained organic substances.

Another possiblity for the possibility of life on Earth was that it emerged somewhere else in the galaxy. Proponents of this theory called panspermia believe that this could have happened through the bombardment of early Earth with comets, meteors, or other cosmic debris.

What is the role of chance and probability in the emergence of life? What constitutes an “improbable” or a “likely” event? Does the vast time and space of the known universe allow life to emerge more than once?

When considering the problem of probablitly, we need to remember that it happened at least once: with Earth. This gives us a semi-start to any equation, since it must equal to at least one. Since life did happen here, it's not impossible that it may happen somewhere else. Also when considering probabilities we must consider the amount of time the universe has had to create itself. If we just considered 5 billions year (a little longer than the presumed age of Earth) then the probability will be considerably lower than say 65 billion years. Given a long period of time, anything is bound to happen!

Probabilities can be calculated at each stage in the emergence of life. These probabilities depend on the author. Dawkins gives his "ration of luck" to the origin of life, but Simpson gives it to intelligence. Meaning, Dawkins believes that if life does happen to happen, which is a very unlikely event, then the rest of the evolutionary process follows mostly in suit and fairly stablely; while Simpson believes that it is not so incredible to have life emerge, but intelligence is the rarity, the fluke.

Does the origin of life follow deterministic principles as chemists and physicists tend to assume, or are the important steps contingent and “opportunistic”? Remember also Dawkins’ claim that the emergence of life cannot be too probable, since we don’t see aliens (in our local stellar neighborhood, anyway).

A sample size of one could make this an unanswerable question. Specific process cannot be repeated, and here on earth, only one intelligent species has emerged, making it unlikely. Origin of biomolecules is deterministic, following the known laws of chemistry. A scaffolding stage makes the origin of life more plausible, since it makes the emergence of life based on natural laws, making the process more likely, even if it isn't a demonstration of how life emerged. However, without a greater number of samples, we cannot tell if evolutionary steps follow strict natural laws that would inevitably lead to similar or the same things, such as intelligence, or if much random chance goes into the process.

Given the origin of life, there is still the question of intelligence. Evolutionary biologists disagree on the probability of the emergence of intelligence in the evolutionary process. What sorts of arguments are given for and against the possibility of simultaneous emergence of intelligence in different species? Feel free to include Wallace here if you like.

Modern civilization defines intelligence as the use of technology, self-awareness, and language.  Many, such as Wallace, believe that there are too many variables in environment, genetic mutations, and characteristics for branching to occur a second time in the same way. Others believe that it is possible that our scenario might not be the only course of evolution possible, and thus resulting in other intelligent species won't look like humans.

But if evolution is considered under the deterministic viewpoint then that makes it inevitable. One possible method suggested for this inevitablity is convergence , which is where a trait develops independently in multiple species, some examples include flight and the eye.  Design theory, an alternative to the scaffolding and chance theories, says intelligence is created, removing the improbability from the evolution of intelligence. Design theory does raise problems though such as the problem of the origin of the designer and the fact that design theory is not testable or falsifiable because it does not follow natural laws.

What is intelligent design? Is it a reasonable alternative to naturalistic theories of the origin of life? How can you decide between design and metaphysical naturalism? Methodological naturalism?

Intelligent design involves the existence of most likely a supernatural creator. The most powerful reason it remains as a possible theory of the origin of life is due to its connection to religious beliefs and the fact that it can be incorporated into most worldviews. It usually implies a supernatural designer, so it is not falsifiable or testable--therefore it does not qualify as technically "science." This theory is not necessarily separated from the scaffolding theory. These two theories can, but many times do not, coincide. Answering the question of origins is such a big question, there are many many possible answers that would never be made definitive. 

How does this affect your current position on the existence of extraterrestrials?

Mitch Bussone-  This does not really change my opinion on the existence of extraterrestrials, I still believe that they exist.  The theories presented along with the origin of life, like Panspermia, only add more hope that e.t.'s might exist.  If we learn more about how we emerged, we could apply that to other planets that might meet the same requirements for life as ours and hopefully find some form of organic life.  I do not really agree that aliens sent our DNA information here and it flourished but I do think that if there are extraterrestrials out there, we might have some form of biological connection since we would both be intelligent species.