No. It's a statement of fact, supported by the remainder of my post. Your calculations are worthless.
I also notice you offer no alternative calculation.
I don't have to in order to point out that yours is a crock.
You still can't produce a probability that isn't zero.
Of course not - you've very carefully stacked the deck to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. Your entire model is worthless, so tweaking the numbers is an exercise in futility.
Humans should be considered the prime organism?
I point out that you don't know what such a "prime organism" should look like, and therefore, your estimates of what it takes to make one are worthless. Worthlessness, further compounded by your selection of one of the largest known genomes in existence. Why should the "prime organism" require a genome of 29,000,000 base pairs, especially when we know of contemporary organisms with genomes less than 2% that large? Answer: it doesn't. Your postulate of 0.0001% of 290 billion is, prima facie, a crock.
Mine are within an order of magnitude...
No, you've simply invented them out of thin air. You don't know what you should know to make such a model work, but you behave as though you do. This is, needless to say, practically the dictionary definition of irrationality. You have nowhere demonstrated that any evolutionary theorist claims that the development of life proceeded in the manner you suggest, but you spend an awful lot of time knocking it down nonetheless. This is a classic strawman argument. Go away and learn something about what evolutionary theory does and does not claim, and come back when you are ready to have a serious discussion about the theory as it actually is, rather than discussing some theory you just made up all by yourself.
This thread is about teaching ID. Nowhere do I purport to be arguing against evolution theory. Here's a flash: ID and evolution may not be mutually exclusive. My understanding of the tangent we have been following was origin of life--a purely ID issue.
You argue the parameters. I offer that you propose alternatives and recalculate. The response goes straight to emotion. I didn't know that "crock" and "garbage" are meaningful scientific assessments. Nor did I know we were debating evolution. I though the origin of life was out of evolutionary bounds.
Do you have a theory of molecular self-assembly? At what point did the "spark of life" occur?
This exercise is simply showing that based on our current knowledge of nature, there isn't enough time for life to develop at random.