Replies

"The author in the math cited above simplified the probability math even further in order to show that even life forms orders of magnitudes simpler (i.e. shorter sequence of codons) than the most basic known life need external bias even when given 17 billion years of available, active time."

There is a small word what appears twice in your posting: "known". But does the author know the origin of life? "[...] for the most basic/simple known life form." So how simple was life 3 Billion years ago? The author didn't know this. That is the problem with his probability calculations. His initial data is insufficient to calculate something worth to argue about.

My dice argument wasn't about a 29-letter code or a 4-base genetic code. It was about the nonsense to make calculations about an unknown system.

"TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE QUESTION."
Do you know one ancestor of that sentence?
Maybe 'To have or have not, is that a question?'
Do you know the forebear of a Mercedes SLK 55 AMG?

Do you know how impossible it is, that I wrote that to you what I wrote?
You can calculate a probability and claim it is impossible for me to wrote that.
Pardon, but I wrote it.
Well, I'm not a monkey but for me the best explanation still is that we have common ancestors.

"So how simple was life 3 Billion years ago? The author didn't know this. That is the problem with his probability calculations. His initial data is insufficient to calculate something worth to argue about."

That's incorrect. The author is showing in his math the *probability* for a sequence of data. You can apply that math to many fields/areas, such as to the sequence of codons that form DNA.

Since DNA has sequenced codons, the author's math holds true even though he wasn't there circa 3 billin years ago for the first DNA life form.

If you want to claim that a very small sequence of codons could possibly form life, then your claim could be verified and his math will still apply to that small sequence, by the way.