If your DNA sequence (that you refer to above) is longer (counting sequential base pairs) than a sequence equivilant to 96 letters in the English alphabet, then the math shows that it can not happen randomly in 17 Billion years of trying.
The sequencing of any data over that size must be done by a non-natural process, per the math in said proof.
Wrong. It would indicate a non-random cause, not a non-natural one.
then the math shows that it can not happen randomly in 17 Billion years of trying. The sequencing of any data over that size must be done by a non-natural process, per the math in said proof.
How do you justify getting from 'cannot happen randomly' to 'non-natural'? It seems to me a more logical conclusion would be 'the natural process wasn't random in the way Watson described'.
Never say "can not happen." Think about it this way. If you have an apparently random strand, what are the odds that it will be arranged in a way to create exactly us? Very small. What are the odds that it will arrange in some way? 1:1 since it's obviously arranged. How many billions, or even trillions of different DNA have been in viable creatures on this earth? How many billions, trillions, quadrillions or more combinations are just as viable? That divides your odds quite a bit, not that the odds matter anyway. ID people calculate the odds for us to appear, but evolution doesn't place any bets on us having appeared in the first place, only that through the process, something will have appeared. So there are no odds to consider.