[narby]

The math is valid for the probabilities involved in sequencing.

Sequence .... what?

That's the problem. No one knows the layout of the first molecule that was self reproducing to an extent that allowed Evolution.

Your math is therefore meaningless.

Oh, I forgot. You haven't a clue about how Evolution works, and refuse to be educated, so you wouldn't know that.

[Southack]

"That's the problem. No one knows the layout of the first molecule that was self reproducing to an extent that allowed Evolution. Your math is therefore meaningless."

No, the math is meaningful, not meaningless. Nor does it matter about the precise molecule that did whatever nonsense you uttered above.

What matters are the probabilities for unaided processes correctly sequencing programming instructions into a viable genetic set. Not *one* viable genetic set, but *any* viable genetic set.

...And for calculating such probabilities, math is the first as well as final authority.

So if you disagree with said math, which your protestations so far would imply, then you must either show your own correct math that legitimately contradicts the probabilities that I gave you, or else to be honest, you must concede that the math is both valid and accurate.