"You are right, it doesn't. And that is why Watson's pontificating is erroneous. Perhaps if he had done some math along those lines, it might be worth something in that respect." - ThinkPlease
No, Watson's math is directly to the point because he is calculating the probability of data sequencing itself without intelligent intervention. He didn't need to do anything along your lines such as prove that chemicals can bond with each other and form structures. We already know that.
But what distinguishes the double-helix of an amoebae from the double-helix of an aardvark? The data stored in the sequence of A, C, G, and T base pairs that comprise those double-helix structures, of course.
How did that data sequence itself? Was it by an unintelligent, "natural" process? That's what the math in this thread directly addresses.
My God, man, are you dense? You've completely misunderstood my point! My point is that unless you can show me that data sequences itself like that in real life, his whole argument isn't anything more than an elaborate exercise in probability. So, does it?
How did that data sequence itself? Was it by an unintelligent, "natural" process? That's what the math in this thread directly addresses.
Please show us the evidence that this is how DNA is sequenced in nature. Which is what I asked you for the first time! A published paper would be preferrable, but I'll take anything else with a complete presentation of the material (such as a talk given at a meeting, or a poster presentation).