Here's the actual article on the arXiv.

I find it a useful working assumption that everything on physorg is either wrong or copied from somewhere else where it's presented more accurately or informatively. I don't think I've found any counterexamples yet.

Anyway, the article is merely making the observation that what's known about when life on earth emerged doesn't constitute enough evidence to make our posterior probabilities for abiogenesis very different from our priors. This isn't exactly world-shaking.