No, that's incorrect. It is correct, your habit of saying "is not!" notwithstanding.
If you think you can find any flaw in my physics, feel free to point it out now.
Water evaporation isn't more complicated because it does NOT depend upon any set, specific sequence of water molecules.
First, the end process in my example was rain, not evaporation. Try to keep up.
Second, the point is that it most certainly *does* take a very unlikely specific configuration of water molecules if, like the author of the original post, you foolishly make your calculations without taking into account all the physical processes at work.
However, the first sentence of Hamlet ABSOLUTELY depends upon a set, specific sequence of characters,
...which is one of the many reasons it's an invalid analogy...
as does every gene depend upon a set, specific sequence of base pairs.
Gee, really? Then you must have new information to rebut all those biologists who have found huge numbers of alternate forms of various genetic sequences in various species, all performing the same function.
And the potential "sequence space" is even larger:
However, an analysis by Ekland suggests that in the sequence space of 220 nucleotide long RNA sequences, a staggering 2.5 x 10^112 sequences are efficent ligases [12]. Not bad for a compound previously thought to be only structural. Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 10^24 litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10^-7 M [23], then there are roughly 1 x 10^49 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 10^34) could be produced in a year, let alone a million years. The potential number of RNA polymerases is high also; about 1 in every 10^20 sequences is an RNA polymerase [12]. Similar considerations apply for ribosomal acyl transferases (about 1 in every 10^15 sequences), and ribozymal nucleotide synthesis [1, 6, 13]. Similarly, of the 1 x 10^130 possible 100 unit proteins, 3.8 x 10^61 represent cytochrome C alone! [29] There's lots of functional enyzmes in the peptide/nucleotide search space, so it would seem likely that a functioning ensemble of enzymes could be brewed up in an early Earth's prebiotic soup.
-- Ian Musgrave [footnote links available in original link, try reading it]
That was from one of the references I strongly suggested that you read. Is there any reason you didn't bother? Is there any reason I should continue to spoonfeed you information if you're not going to bother to pay any attention to it?
Water evaporation isn't more complicated [than gene sequences in DNA or in monkeys typing the first sentence of Hamlet] because it does NOT depend upon any set, specific sequence of water molecules. - Southack
"First, the end process in my example was rain, not evaporation. Try to keep up." - Dan Day
Acting petty and pedantic fails to promote a scientific discussion (yes, I know, you've got some quips and retorts about just how "scientific" this discussion has become - because you are utterly predictable). Moreover, my point was valid for evaporation and is still also valid for condensation (i.e. rain). - Southack
"Second, the point is that it most certainly *does* take a very unlikely specific configuration of water molecules if, like the author of the original post, you foolishly make your calculations without taking into account all the physical processes at work." - Dan Day
That's ridiculous. Rain is NOT dependent upon any specific sequence of ordered molecules of H2O, and because it is NOT dependent upon sequence, its processes are less complicated, less complex, and more probable than are actions which require large amounts of specificly sequenced data (e.g. the ordered characters of the alphabet which comprise the first sentence of Hamlet, the ordered sequence of base pairs which comprise a functioning gene, et al).
However, the first sentence of Hamlet ABSOLUTELY depends upon a set, specific sequence of characters, - Southack ...which is one of the many reasons it's an invalid analogy... - Dan Day
as does every gene depend upon a set, specific sequence of base pairs. - Southack
Gee, really? Then you must have new information to rebut all those biologists who have found huge numbers of alternate forms of various genetic sequences in various species, all performing the same function. - Dan Day
I said nothing about the sequence of genes, even though you've managed to falsely infer that point from my posts. Surely you can comprehend that the sequence of base pairs INSIDE a gene is seperate and distinct from any potential sequence (if any) of genes themselves.
The sequence of base pairs is absolutely critical. Changing the sequence will impact the output of the specific gene in question.
Of course, like any good programming language, there will always be more than one way to achieve the same eventual functionality, so it is entirely possible for two radically different sequence of codons to achieve something remarkably similar, but the path taken to reach the final result WILL be different (certainly so if the sequences of codons are different, rearranged, or changed).
And contrary to your bizarre claim above in the blockquote, that fact does NOT invalidate my analogy.
You'll have to do far better than that if you want to appear even the least bit persuasive (something that you've utterly failed at up to this point).