Why we might be alone in the Universe

[Anomalocaris]

Second data point as in a second independent abiogenesis as you conceive it is not the only way to constrain deductions based on current understanding of possible chemical process of abiogenesis.   We actually do have a an alternative data point.  That is how long did it take for abiogenesis to occur in the one instance where it is known to have occurred, after conditions can reasonably be said to have allowed it.

The answer is very quickly.  That is a strong data point, as strong as discovering several independent occurrence of abiogenesis on other planets, for the contention that abiogenesis is a easy process to facilitate on a time scale of hundred million years in geological and chemical conditions prevalent on early earth.

The early start of life on earth is addressed at 9:35 in the video.

Except he didn’t address it.  What he did was to use an bullshit analogy with additional flourish - a very tight drop dead deadline - absent from the hypothesis it attempts to mimic to insinuate that the support cited for the original hypothesis suffers from extreme sample bias, when in fact the 60 second drop dead deadline has no analogy in the theory of abiogenesis.   The notion that the average lock picking process takes days or many time longer than the prisoner has does not exactly correspond to any well supported theory of what is going on during abiogenesis.  

In fact the observation that life arose on earth in less than 10% of the time it had available to arise - far skewed to the quick side of 50% one would expect to be average of the random sample constrained by the sample Windows - suggest the sample bias or the size of the sample window is weak explanation for the observation of quick abiogenesis.

So he tries to pass off as an analogy that which is no analogy, in order discredit a red herring.  And he did it in a manner very much reminiscent of a confidence trickster.

Let’s examine his bullshit analogy further by extending it.  Let’s say the prisoner picked the lock in not 60 seconds but 6 seconds.   Someone then tells him via YouTube that he would have dropped dead in 60 seconds, ie before now, had he not picked the lock, so his sample is skewed, but he sees zero evidence for that to be the case.   Should he conclude based on the available evidence of his picking of the lock in 6 seconds is likely a freakish occurrence, skewed by observer biases, and not an indication of how easily can the lock be picked?