Oh please, surely you can at least grasp the math involved in statistical probabilities. Yes. Yes indeed I can. Now will you please catch up?
The alternative sequences are far too small in number to substantially alter the probabilities as stated in the math for this thread. Whether you have one valid sequence in 10^41 or 20,000,000 valid sequences, your mathematical probability for randomly hitting any of them is still essentially 0.
Are you suffering from some tragic brain damage which causes you to be unable to remember things from one day to the next? We dealt with this one already, son. See post #559. Here's the relevant portion, which you obviously failed to understand in the least:
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]
Those are *VASTLY* larger numbers than the bogus "20,000,000" you offered as a false estimate.
Dishonest, or stupid?
Either way, you're a lost cause, don't expect much more of my time. My work here is done, I've exposed you as a charlatan and/or a fool too many times to count now. Whether or not you're able to admit it, the lurkers should be quite able to see the shoddy quality of the anti-evolution arguments.
"Monkeys" my hind end. Come back when you're able to properly analyze self-sustaining organic chemical cycles and *then* we'll talk.
The alternative sequences are far too small in number to substantially alter the probabilities as stated in the math for this thread. Whether you have one valid sequence in 10^41 or 20,000,000 valid sequences, your mathematical probability for randomly hitting any of them is still essentially 0. - Southack
"... 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..." - Dan Day
Although I already debunked your RNA angle (above in this thread) when I called your bluff by asking you to produce a non-DNA life-form, it's probably worth repeating that RNA is not under discussion.
We're talking about DNA (unless, of course, you can provide a non-DNA life form on hand in our scientific evidence stockpile).
Moreover, we're talking about the SEQUENCE of base pairs in DNA, and more specificly, we're talking about the mathematical probability of such sequences occuring without intelligent intervention.
Hence, the math for this thread (to at least illustrate the vastness of the scope and scale of the problem, as well as the low, essentially zero probability of such an occurance).