[Southack]

"And it is a completely meaningless number. It has nothing to do with evolution or the origin of DNA."

Hey, this is a math thread. If you don't like the numbers in the article, then feel free to post your own calculations for the self-formation of the first DNA.

[mlo]

Hey, this is a math thread. If you don't like the numbers in the article, then feel free to post your own calculations for the self-formation of the first DNA.

It isn't a question of having different numbers. Your premise is wrong. You are calculating the odds of a random process and infering a meaning relating to DNA, but DNA formation isn't a random process. It's a meaningless excercise.

[Lev]

Hey, this is a math thread. If you don't like the numbers in the article, then feel free to post your own calculations for the self-formation of the first DNA.

The math looks correct for the million monkeys problem. But, DNA self-formation is a very different problem. A more similar problem would look like this:
1. prepare the input components
2. run a 'round' of reactions
3. REMOVE all results of 'failed' attempts
4. goto 2.

See the difference? Feedback rings a bell maybe?

[Doctor Stochastic]

The posted article had no computations or discussion about DNA. It only had comments which didn't have anything to do with the rest of the article.