Nope. I was trying to capture the essense of the "disproof" in another application. The calculation in the article is of the occurrence (not the re-occurrence) of some given sequence, is it not? The flaw in both cases is the same - some particular sequence isn't the interesting thing.
No. The mathematical odds of your sequence occuring are 1 in 1.
No, what's 100% is some sequence occurring. The likelihood of my sequence is, as I stated, virtually infinitesimal.
PS. I don't think I'm being intellectually dishonest at all, simply pointing out at least one flaw in the reasoning of the article. There are others.
That's incorrect. The math for this thread specifically deals with the probability/improbability of Shakespeare's first sentence of Hamlet "To be or not to be, that is the question" re-occuring based upon various random output.
Likewise, the math can be applied to any desired result (for data, at least). If your desired result is to show the probability/improbability of bases and acids combining naturally (i.e., without intelligent aid) to create the desired result of a life form, then the math applies.
The flaw is therefore not in the examples above, but rather with your assumptions and conclusions.
"No, what's 100% is some sequence occurring. The likelihood of my sequence is, as I stated, virtually infinitesimal." - edsheppa
That's incorrect. Your sequence has already occurred. The probability for that event occurring is therefor 1 in 1.