Replies

It is increasingly clear that you do not understand. Lets start with the most basic two sequences in chemistry...Carbon and Oxygen. I think you and I will both agree that any organic reaction starts with carbon, oxygen and hydrogen atoms reacting to create simple hydrocarbons and water. For example, the simplest reaction between the two is: C + O ==> CO in dark clouds. Then we can get CO + O ==> CO_{2}, also at low pressures. What happens when a chemical reaction breaks down water? There is a greater nonzero probability that it will go back to CO + O, not C + O + O. We are not back at the beginning, but at some intermediate step. Let's say that we climb the ladder to a complex hydrocarbon, like caffeine (my favorite), which has the molecular formula C_{8}H_{10}N_{4}O_{2}. Oops, this isn't going to probably get us any farther on the track to DNA, right? but we don't have to completely start over, either. It will break down into some intermediate form, and there will be a non-zero probability (dependant on the environment) that a daughter product of the reaction could climb the ladder up to DNA. It is not "back to square one" as Mr. Watson put it, but back to an intermediate step. He is guilty for over simplifying his argument.

It is not 1^{359} like he suggests, but is likely a more reasonable number.

It will break down into some intermediate form, and there will be a non-zero probability (dependant on the environment) that a daughter product of the reaction could climb the ladder up to DNA. It is not "back to square one" as Mr. Watson put it, but back to an intermediate step. He is guilty for over simplifying his argument. It is not 1^{359} like he suggests, but is likely a more reasonable number.

Hasn't this been settled by observation? What was Miller about?

"It is increasingly clear that you do not understand. Lets start with the most basic two sequences in chemistry...Carbon and Oxygen. ... It is not "back to square one" as Mr. Watson put it, but back to an intermediate step. He is guilty for over simplifying his argument."

That's incorrect. Watson isn't referring to the probability / improbability of chemicals to self-form. Instead, he is referring to the ability of chemicals to randomly form, store, and sequence data in an organized manner.

It is DATA "self-forming", not chemicals that are in question. Whether the data that we are looking for is the first sentence of Hamlet or the first gene in DNA, Watson's math applies equally.

To sequence that data, whether into a story in a book or into a working gene in DNA, the mathematical odds of the event happening randomly, without Intelligent Intervention, are precisely the same.

Ergo, it is you who is guilty of oversimplifying, not Watson.