[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.

[Southack]

"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."

"Random" simply means unaided by any intelligent bias. Are you certain that you want to claim that the first DNA wasn't randomly formed?