>>7969807
33.334%
It's more or less a game of luck.

Its either DNA or not DNA so exactly 50%

>>7970456
That is assuming these two odds are intrinsically equal which is not necessarily true.

>>7969807
It has been speculated that earlier life used RNA rather than DNA so that is an immediate halving of the chances.

Moreover CGTA are not the onbly possible base pairs so the probability plunges further.

And that assumes you are using nucleic acids. For all we know alien life could use silicon or sulfur based chemistry rather than carbon in which case the inherent probabilities are anyone's guess.

>>7972317
Silicon/ Sulphur doesn't make anywhere close to as many molecules as Carbon makes. Silicon based life is a meme. Carbon is the only atom capable of forming so many complex molecules. Wherever we find life, it will be carbon based.

>>7972355
>Wherever we find life, it will be carbon based.
That would be my guess as well.

>>7972317
The RNA world hypothesis is pretty much accepted by academia so early life in other planets very similar to ours will likely utilise RNA since it can act as both replicator and catalyst.

>>7969807
We simply don't know, which is also one of the reasons there is such curiosity in discovering extraterrestrial life.

>>7972355
>Silicon/ Sulphur doesn't make anywhere close to as many molecules as Carbon makes.
Indubitably so

>Silicon based life is a meme. Carbon is the only atom capable of forming so many complex molecules.
We do not need a LARGE number of molecules for generation which is what OP asked about. Indeed also we use a small set. So any SI or S based alternative only have to provide one single working solution. That is all.

>Wherever we find life, it will be carbon based.
It is LIKELY so but that sure is no guarantee.

If their enviornment is similar to earth's then a good chance, or at least RNA