[js1138]

When a statistical computation gives a probability that differs remarkably from observed data, a sane person would question the underlying assumptions behind the computation.

If I compute the odds of being dealt my current bridge hand, I find it could not possibly have happened.

Without knowing the all the mechanisms involved in replication and error correction, you cannot make the assumptions needed to calculate the odds of any outcome. As for your harping on the absence of natural synthesis of proteins, you have not a clue what is possible. Knowing what doesn't work -- despite Sherlock Holmes' famous dictum -- does not tell you what will work.

If you ignore this and compute odds that suggest the current bridge hand is impossible, and you lack the curiosity and drive to speculate on how it could have happened, then you simply lack the curiosity needed to be a scientist.

[AndrewC]

Without knowing the all the mechanisms involved in replication and error correction, you cannot make the assumptions needed to calculate the odds of any outcome.

Horse manure.

I repeat. BLAST is used everyday to make judgements in biology. It is statistically based. You do not understand that. Your lack of understanding does not matter to the scientists who use this tool every day.