Use something once. Told it's wrong. Use it again to the same person. Not good.
I am not aware that he retracted it. I suggest you provide documentation.
here You could have asked for it the first time if you did not believe me.
But even if he did, the point is that at one time he realized how unlikely the random origin of life is. If he really did retract it, it is probably only because the PC police got after him.
Nice try on the PC thing, please remove the tin foil hat. He retracted it because of advances in science that he admittedly did not anticipate. His ideas of the possible mechanisms of origin did not include the simpler, more probable mechanisms later discovered.
I expect that I will not see Crick disingenuously quoted out of context again?
And by the way, you still don’t have a clue about the probability of a random origin of life.
Neither do you. In fact, all we have are guesses about probability that have an a priori assumption that we are the desired end result, thus invalidating the entire exercise.
“Use something once. Told it’s wrong. Use it again to the same person. Not good.”
Excuse me, but you are making more of a fool of yourself with each post. Are you seriously telling me that I am violating some ethical rule by quoting the co-discoverer of DNA straight out of his own book? So he revised his views, and that means I am not allowed to quote him. According that rule, nobody would ever be able to quote anyone.
By the way, the link you sent was a two-pager of new twists in the ongoing wild speculation about how life could have started. It contains no real results, and no calculation of odds at all — probably because the authors have good reason to avoid those considerations and hope nobody brings up the subject.
So what is the upshot? That the odds of a functional cell forming at random has been revised up from 1/10^40,000 to 1/10^39,000? I doubt that either you *or* Crick are capable of even comprehending such probabilities let alone estimating them.
As for Watson and Crick, I get the impression that they think they *invented* DNA rather than just discovered it.