I am going to just touch on your question, and I think it would be useful for others to offer alternative perspectives as well.

For me, the statistical likelihood of life spontaneously developing is a moot point. It did, here, for us. Our cosmic lottery ticket had the winning numbers. Unlikely? Perhaps. But the fact that we're here to talk about it demonstrates that it wasn't impossible.

Even statistics will tell you that long shots do come in.

Now, one might argue that I don't know that life came about without divine help. True, I don't. But I have yet to learn of any evidence in some kind of divine creator, whereas I have learned of a lot of evidence of a materialistic development of life. Like Wilson, I am best described as a provisional deist, however. I always found atheism to be just as faith-based as most religions. So far, we can no more prove the absence of God as the presence of God. Show me empirical evidence of God (and I don't see that statistical pyrotechnics by themselves constitute empirical evidence), and I will change my tune. So far, physics, biology, and evolutionary theory are doing really well without God though. There's certainly so much more to be learned, but in terms of hard evidence, God is striking out.

Beyond that, I'm not sure I'm even convinced that you can statistically prove that life is infinitesminally likely. I've read (as a layman to be sure) that life may be more likely than it might seem. I've even seen it suggested, by meeting a few basic conditions, life may be all but inevitable. Life not so different from us (defining "us" as all life on planet Earth) may require little more than liquid water, a fairly reliable energy source, and a mix of elements commonly found in the universe.

I don't want to presume to suggest that I am an authority on this topic by any means. I'm just a layman who enjoys reading and learning about science. People with actual education likely come along and show all the absurdities and scientific fallacies in my arguments here, and I will enjoy reading them, and being educated further!

...to stop putting his party ahead of his country.

...no one can even make a convincing case that steroids even matter. In fact, compelling arguments suggest that steroids are both a help and a hindrance to batting as well as non-contributory.

A buncha people are freaking out because one guy maybe did something that so far is "proven" through circumstantial evidence and innuendo. In the end, it's still mostly he-said, she-said, nuh-uh, liar-liar-pants-on-fire evidence against Bonds. Yeah some other guys either admitted it or got busted, but all that means is some guys used steroids. It still doesn't mean it actually matters. Even if Bonds is juiced to the gills with testicles the size of raisins, nobody really knows if that makes a lick of difference.

Personally, I don't have a dog in this race. I don't care of Barry Bonds hits a jerbillion home runs or one, and I don't care if he breaks Ruth's record, Aaron's record, or an Abba record. What I do know is steroids or not, he's doing something very few people can do, whether you think it's important or not, or whether you think he's an asshole or not.

I just have to wonder what all the fuss is about. Drugs have ALWAYS been a part of baseball, and frankly, they always will be because they are always a part of everything. Amphetamines were the daily diet of many of our heroes of yore (cough, Mantle, cough). Athletes use supplements, many of which are of questionable virtue, some of which will be banned in the future, just as past supplements in common use were subsequently banned.

People are have wiggy fits and they don't even know if they should, and they seem to have no knowledge or historical context. You can come up with reasons why every record ever broken should have an asterisk next to it.

Get over it. Get some knowledge, get some perspective. And. Get. The. Fuck. Over. It.

Rampart, I didn't defend Bonds. I pointed out that whatever he did, A) no one has successfully demonstrated it would make a difference (that's not advocating intelligent design, it's advocating the scientific method; shrill heresay and personal impressions about 'roids aren't evidence) and B) Bonds isn't special. Drugs have been a part of sports going back at least decades, and some records were set by athletes openly using drugs that demonstrably improve performance. Some of those athletes are now national or international heros.

The most important part of my letter was this: you can come up with a reason why every record ever broken was tainted. This guy was coked up, that guy was on speed, the lady over there dosed with diuretics, and don't forget the guy with a kid in every city. I'm not excusing the choices athletes make, or the behaviors they exhibit -- just pointing out that there is nothing unique or special about Bonds just because he's an ass or might have used a drug that wasn't against the rules

Any moment now, someone will post a long tortured argument explaining why some fellow who hit 67 homeruns is the true record holder because they can prove he never smoke or drank to took an aspirin or spanked his kid.

Barry may be a dick, and he may be a steroid user, but that doesn't make him unusual. It makes him a major league baseball player.