"Let's say we have 2 bases, and the original sequence is AA. Then the list of sequences accessible by a single point mutation is (AT, AG, AC, TA, GA, CA). That's six, which is 3*2, not 3^2.
If we have three bases, starting from AAA, we get (AAT, AAG, AAC, ATA, AGA, ACA, TAA, GAA, CAA). That's 3*3 = 9, not 3^3 = 27."
Incorrect. Nice of you to just join up to post such rubbish, though.
AA is 1 base pair out of 1953 in the bacteria gene under debate. A single point mutation (presuming canonical Crick for an ideal B formation double helix - omiting other possible pairs such as AA GG GA CC UU (or TT) CU AC AU (or AT) GC GU (or TT) pairings) would give us AT, AG, AC, TA, GA, or CA.
2 base pairs would then give us 6^2 possibilities.
E.g., instead of AA, GG for the first two base pairs, we could have any of the 6 combinations for AA mentioned above (AT, AG, AC, TA, GA, or CA) in combination with all 6 possibilities for GG (GA, GT, GC, AG, TG, CG).
That's 6 * 6 possibilities for 2 base pairs, which is represented as 6^2.
3 base pairs would give us 6 * 6 * 6 possibilities, represented as 6^3.
You evolutionists need to bone up on simple math. So far no fewer than 2 of you have failed "sequencially" on this thread.
By the way, because pairs such as AG & GA could be seen as duplicates, the formula that I gave in the earlier post for 3^1953 was used instead of 6^1953.
Incorrect. Nice of you to just join up to post such rubbish, though. It's a shame that you chose to become personal so quickly . How long ago I signed up does not affect whether I am right or wrong.
AA is 1 base pair out of 1953 in the bacteria gene under debate.
A does not pair with A. A pairs with T. And when we list a genetic sequence, we don't usually give the complementary bases, because anyone who knows the rudiments can figure out what the complementary strand is. So AA pairs with TT.
You evolutionists need to bone up on simple math.
If you don't understand the structure of DNA, you are going to make mistakes even before you get to doing any math.
By the way, because pairs such as AG & GA could be seen as duplicates, the formula that I gave in the earlier post for 3^1953 was used instead of 6^1953.
DNA strands have a direction. They are by convention given from 5' end to 3' end. So AG is not the same as GA, and they can't be 'seen as duplicates', unless you don't understand the chemical structure of DNA.
I hope you don't think it's impolite for me to suggest that you should learn some elementary molecular biology before you try to argue about it.