It’s not a priori impossible that some different fuels were created using different processes,
No, but it’s highly unlikely that both processes create comparable amounts of fuel.
For example, diamond forms from several different processes, but the vast majority of them are formed in the Earth’s mantle and then brought to the surface by volcanic processes. It’s technically true that there are diamonds that used to be coal, but saying that diamonds came from coal would be highly misleading.
Clearly there are at least three different processes, because they create three different outcomes: coal, gas and oil. They may all three be produced from biological matter (Western theory), or all three from methane (USSR theory), or some types may be produced from biological matter and some other types from methane. Maybe even some types could be produced from both origins, although the prior is low and it’s true in this case you would expect a majority to come from one process.
We observe comparable (in orders of magnitude) amounts of fuel of all three types. This is something any theory must account for. It might be evidence for a similar origin for all three fuel types (e.g. due to constraints on how much source matter was available to convert into fuel). But I don’t see how it’s evidence for one kind of origin over another.
I meant for each individual type. I don’t know if there’s any particular reason to believe all three kinds of fuels were from the same process.
I suppose the fact that they all have comparable amounts of fuel is some evidence, but it’s not as strong, since I don’t think we would particularly expect comparable amounts of fuel even if they did have the same source.
Maybe even some types could be produced from both origins, although the prior is low and it’s true in this case you would expect a majority to come from one process.
No, but it’s highly unlikely that both processes create comparable amounts of fuel.
For example, diamond forms from several different processes, but the vast majority of them are formed in the Earth’s mantle and then brought to the surface by volcanic processes. It’s technically true that there are diamonds that used to be coal, but saying that diamonds came from coal would be highly misleading.
I’m not sure what you’re arguing for here.
Clearly there are at least three different processes, because they create three different outcomes: coal, gas and oil. They may all three be produced from biological matter (Western theory), or all three from methane (USSR theory), or some types may be produced from biological matter and some other types from methane. Maybe even some types could be produced from both origins, although the prior is low and it’s true in this case you would expect a majority to come from one process.
We observe comparable (in orders of magnitude) amounts of fuel of all three types. This is something any theory must account for. It might be evidence for a similar origin for all three fuel types (e.g. due to constraints on how much source matter was available to convert into fuel). But I don’t see how it’s evidence for one kind of origin over another.
I meant for each individual type. I don’t know if there’s any particular reason to believe all three kinds of fuels were from the same process.
I suppose the fact that they all have comparable amounts of fuel is some evidence, but it’s not as strong, since I don’t think we would particularly expect comparable amounts of fuel even if they did have the same source.
Then I agree, as I said,