For me to provide you with an acceptable probability formula, you will have to first state how many codons are in the minimum complexity gene?Also, nice dodge on your part. Not only did you not provide your own mathematical formula for the probability of genes forming naturally, but you also didn't provide a single example of where the math for this thread was in error.
Nor can you.
Wow... How... Lame.
So your "precise" probability calculation can't be stated in general, it's *different* for every input value?
I call COW PATTIES, son.
But hey, I'll call your bluff. A minimum complexity gene has 7 codons.
Now show this secret "precise" calculation you claim to have.
Also, nice dodge on your part. Not only did you not provide your own mathematical formula for the probability of genes forming naturally,
Actually, I did. Try reading the links I provided you.
but you also didn't provide a single example of where the math for this thread was in error.
The arithmatic (at least for the original post) is fine -- I haven't proofread the entire thread, nor am I likely to. If you're really curious about typing monkeys, the author has written the definitive treatment.
What's bogus, however, is the comparison of that analysis to anything that is postulated to have happened in evolution. The moment he tries to make that parallel, that's where it all becomes, as I said, "full of errors, unsupported presumptions, and overestimations". As a disproof of evolution, it sucks. Maybe the author should have spent more time on analyzing evolution and less time monkeying around. Evolution does not proceed by interplanetary simian typists.
But then, you already posted where the author admitted that, so I'm not clear on what else you wish me to demonstrate at this point.