are you familiar with Drakes equation for determining the likelyhood of life on other planets?

Question

it suggests that a that is earthlike should also produce life. but doesnt it overlook the fact that all life on earth was spawned by a singular event. by its reasoning shouldnt life have also happened the day before and the day after since earth was earthlike on those ocations also. it should also have happened a few inches to the left and right in the primordial ooze as well. it seems to me that life on other planets is very unlikely since conditions on earth were probubly the same in very many places and for a very long time and it virtually never happened. even the most ideal lab conditions are unable to prompt the event. who has it wrong, me or drake, and why?

Answer 1

You are basically right. The Drake equation leaves out
a lot of factors and thus grossly inflates the likelihood of
intelligent life out there when misused.
It's one of the ways religious beliefs
certain scientists have creep into science
(they want other intelligent life to exist
and thus derive a way to estimate it is likely).

It is like someone in your family of four winning the
$10 million power ball lottery so you conclude the chances
of winning are one in four. The first answer is technically
correct, though, in that the equation doesn't say the values
for the variables, but just tries to define what they are.

Answer 2

The Drake Equation isn't so much for determining the likelihood of intelligent extraterrestrial life, (or the possible number of planets with such,) but more of a thought exercise.

The point of Drake is to think about what the necessary factors needed in order for such life to evolve. Depending on who you ask, you will get a different formula for the equation, some versions may have a half dozen variables, others a dozen.

Will only stars similar to ours form planets? (How many planets will one typically have?) Do planets need to be in a specific temperate zone? (How many on average will fall in this zone?) Is the age of the star/planet relevant? (Could comparable life evolve in a shorter time span?) Is the size of the planet relevant? etc.

Anyone calculating Drake is free to insert or discard any factor they please. They just need to justify their decision.

Answer 3

the process for creating life on earth, and probably on similar planets, is not a singular event, but rather an ongoing process, that, over long periods of time, has a high cumulative probability to produce very primitive life by continuously producing organic materials that are the building blocks of primitive life.
assuming this process is nearly endless in planets of the type of early earth, it is almost certain to produce life, at least once.
if from that point on, the laws of evolution take hold, then the process is very likely to produce various life forms and advance these forms in a competitive process.