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).
Sigh -- this bit of nonsense was just too good to pass up. *Then* I'm moving on...
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,
Wow, several fallacies in a single sentence, I'm impressed.
1. It wasn't a bluff.
2. My point in no way rested on a claim that there is RNA-based life, you're off on Mars again.
3. There *IS* RNA-based life, if you knew even a tiny fraction of what you *ought* to know before you try to discuss biology you'd already know this (thus my early observation that you're an ignoramus). Ever heard of a virus, son? All but a few unusual viruses are RNA-based.
4. Even if there *was* no RNA-based life, it wouldn't "debunk" anything about my earlier point, since it wasn't based on the existence (or lack) of RNA-based life.
Sheesh. *This* is the sort of "hello, anybody home?" stuff that makes it not worth talking to you anymore. At each post, you go running off in twelve different directions, most of them irrelevant and/or nonsensical.
it's probably worth repeating that RNA is not under discussion.
Several responses seem appropriate here:
1. No s**t, glad you could figure that all out on your own.
2. Where, exactly, do you think I said that it was?
3. RNA and DNA are extremely similar, and observations about one are most often applicable to the other. Information about RNA is not out of place in a DNA discussion.
4. Maybe it *should* be under discussion. I provided you with several references, none of which you've bothered to read, obviously. You keep fixating on "DNA" as the first replicator, but this means that you're about 40 years out of date. There's been an enormous amount of research on this topic in the past decade or two, and you're ignorant of all of it. RNA-precursors to DNA were most likely a stepping stone to DNA, and you'd *KNOW* that if you bothered to READ THE BLOODY LITERATURE so that you could being to have a *BASIC* grasp of the stuff you keep going on and on about.
The first prerequisite to talking about science is to KNOW some. And sitting in your room counting monkeys is just not cutting it.
We're talking about DNA (unless, of course, you can provide a non-DNA life form on hand in our scientific evidence stockpile).
Done that, watched you fail to read it, watched you continue in your ignorance despite repeated attempts on my part to get you to read the stuff you sorely need to learn about if you want to be able to hold up your end of the conversation.
Giving up on you. Bye.
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.
Hey, what are the odds on those nutty Wright brothers making a 747 as their first shot, eh?
Life started from more humble beginnings than full DNA. Reams of information about that is in the references I linked for you, which you chose not to read. You're calculating the wrong thing. It's that simple.
You haven't a clue, and you haven't shown any signs of being open to acquiring one.
Enjoy your scientific illiteracy.