Replies

"Are you further suggesting that we ignore the odds of any intermediate step at all? That the chain must appear, fully funtional, all at once? That, for example, a 10 base-pair-long strand links with a chain of 6 and then encounters a chain of 20 somewhere else?"

Just to be clear, the math proof for this thread does not deal with an instantaneous formation of data, but rather with the formation of data in the proper sequence over time.

By definition, math for sequences does not ignore intermediate steps.

Just to be clear, the math proof for this thread does not deal with an instantaneous formation of data, but rather with the formation of data in the proper sequence over time.

Typically, you are misunderstanding what it is about. The math deals with instantaneous format of DNA, NOT because it happens in a fraction of a second but because it is talking about a single molecule that is formed in one process.

The objections pointing out this isn't how it would happen aren't objecting to it taking some time to do, they are objecting to the idea that the entire molecule would be formed in one operation.

You still haven't dealt with the other issues brought up. Why don't you address those? Why don't you acknowledge that this mathematical excercise is meaningless, as is implied when you admit it applies to a random process? Why don't you correct yourself?