[Southack]

"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.

[MHalblaub]

"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."

I didn't question the author's math. I doubt his input data.

"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."

So you just guessed that life started with DNA? Why not with RNA? Why do you think it was always a tri-nucleotide sequences code? How can you justify your assumption? What are the most simple living chemical reactions?

What is the possibility for adenine, cytosine, guanine or Thymine? Never read about that anywhere. Is it just to simple to calculate it so everybody knows the answer?


But from the point on when life started you can't apply the author's simple math. Life went on with evolutionary algorithms.