"But hey, I'll call your bluff. A minimum complexity gene has 7 codons." This is the sort of behavior that I've found to be typical of Evolutionists. You all seem to fabricate "facts" out of whole cloth. There is no such minimum complexity gene with only seven codons. You just made that "fact" up. I mean really, what does that "gene" do? I know, you can't answer that question (because you fabricated the "fact" in the first place).
Have you wound down yet? Oh, I see you haven't...
So typical. First you dodged the math (though protesting wildly to the contrary), then you made up a "fact". Like Evolution, all you've got are theories and easily disproven lies such as the one above. A 7 codon gene. Oh, that's rich!
Done now?
You sure? I wouldn't want to cut you off in mid rant, especially when you're doing such a marvelous job of making yourself look like an ass.
Not only are you *very* transparently trying just another lame dodge to avoid having to present (or admit that you don't have) your claimed "precise" calculation for the probability of gene production, but you're proving yourself grossly ignorant of biology at the same time, which is rich since you're trying to convince us all that you know more about it than we do, that you can "disprove" a whole branch of biology.
Here you go: The smallest gene known is a gene in a bacterium that has 21 base pairs. The source is given as Analysis of Human Genetic Linkage by Jurg Ott.
Codons are made of 3 base pairs, you do the math. If you need help, it startss with "21 / 3 = ..."
Now, are you done dodging? Are you going to produce the "precise" probability calculation you claim you have? Or are you going to try to divert attention yet one more time?
"Here you go: The smallest gene known is a gene in a bacterium that has 21 base pairs. The source is given as Analysis of Human Genetic Linkage by Jurg Ott."
Oh good grief. Did I really have to specify the smallest gene to achieve replication?
We were discussing abiogenesis and evolution weren't we?
No matter, consider myself to be corrected. What is the smallest possible gene size to achieve replication (i.e., to actually be germaine to this debate)?
Oh, and the probability formula that you are going to want from me will probably end up being 1/4096^number that you give to respond to that question (4 possible valid bases ^ 2 = potential # of base pairs combinations ^ 3 base pairs per codon), a probability that will decrease subtantially faster than that of the math for the monkeys typing the same length of Hamlet characters.