3(1016)sec
A number you've simply invented. That translates to 951,293,759 years. The age of the earth is known to be 4.55 billion years, and the very oldest fossils are 3 billion years old. You have no way of knowing when during that 1.55 billion year period before known fossils life arose, and hence no justification whatsoever for cutting the available time by 1/3'rd. This is a habit I notice you've engaged in consistently, stacking the deck to manipulate your way to a predetermined outcome. But I digress...
Material available: 109 primordial pools
Another number you've simply invented - based on what, I haven't a clue. Given the size of the earth, there are millions, if not billions, of potential locations for life to have begun right here on this planet, without invoking the size of the universe or some such nonsense. Nobody suggests that each trial took place one single place in sequence, so insofar as you're suggesting that only one place on earth was available for such development, you're arguing against a model that you've simply invented out of whole cloth. Parallelism is widely understood as one of the mechanisms you've - conveniently, I note - overlooked.
Task: Assemble 0.0001% of a genetic chain for a prime organism with time for geometric growth
Why? You've offered no justification for using this percentage over any other. Why not 0.01%? Why not 0.0000001%? And 0.0001% of what, exactly? Well, that's where the dissembling just becomes exceedingly silly:
Assumptions: (1) Amoeba proteus with 2.9(1011) base pairs would be a representative prime organism
LOL. Oh, I see. We want 0.0001% of one of the largest genomes in existence! LOL - how very, very convenient. You point to an organism with a genome of 290 billion base pairs as "representative"? How on earth can you possibly justify that? Humans have, for crying out loud, a genome that's 1% the size of A. proteus, at 2.9 billion base pairs, but 290 billion is supposed to be "representative" of early life. Why not M. pneumoniae? That organism has a genome of only 800,000 base pairs - why not make that "representative"? Because it doesn't properly stack the deck, I suspect.
LOL - bring out the hook, and bring me someone who knows what they're doing.
(2) A geometric growth curve will account for increasing genetic replicative efficiencies.
Sez who? You? Based on what? Why not allow for natural selection to account for that? That is what the actual theory of evolution says, after all.
Pairing trials would occur every second....Geometries and distinct assemblies give each trial a success rate of 20%
Why? Why not every ten seconds? Why not every millisecond? Why not a success rate of 40%? 4%? Why invent numbers - again - with no basis in reality whatsoever?
The rest is statistical mechanics...
No, it's pure garbage. You put garbage numbers in, and you get garbage numbers out, and it really doesn't matter what you do to manipulate them in between those two events - you can polish that turd until your arm falls off, but it's never going to be anything more than that.
Typical emotional Darwinist assessment. LOL. Now we will go through the inevitable nitpicking whether we should use 106 or 107 as a parameter. Bottom line is that you still cannot reach a probability that isn't zero. What the heck, I'm on lunch, and your emotional argument is too juicy to ignore.
I also notice you offer no alternative calculation.
Contemporary timelines place the time from formation of the earth (1.4 (1017) seconds) to genesis of life (1.1(1017) seconds) at 3 (1016) seconds. Use something larger if you wish. Use 1018 seconds...the entire life of the universe. You still can't produce a probability that isn't zero.
Careful on your argument as to primordial pools and parallelism. You may skew the results in the opposite direction.
there are millions, if not billions, of potential locations
BTW 109 is a billion
Humans should be considered the prime organism? Well maybe I better stop here and thank you for your defense of creationism. Do you know what the prime organism is? Oh that's right. Darwinists aren't interested in the prime organism.
Know much mathematics? A geometric curve is about as generous to evolution as you can get. No linear curve, not even a multi-order polynomial, just a very generous gift that isn't enough. As for 0.0001%...again let's be generous. Empiric data don't even support 0.01%.
Again being generous to Darwinists, I simplified the possible interactions from 40-50 (which would yield 1/40 or 1/50 success rate) to 16 elementary cases. Given the sugars, and the fact that they are three dimensional, when two entities try to bind there is one binding angle that is always successful, twelve that are always unsuccessful, and three that may be successful. So round up to 0.20 to be generous.
Feel free to make your own estimates. Mine are within an order of magnitude, but when you're talking 10-100 000 probabilities it's like spitt'n in the Rhine.