Origin of life

[mith]

I am not trying to insult you but I am insulted by your approach to calculating such a number and then claiming it as correct and supporting your conclusion with it.

Regarding million iterations:
If I thought I was being generous and said that there were 99,000 billion atoms in the universe, would I be right? It's not about being generous or not, it's about being accurate. It could be less than a million or more, I wouldn't really care about the figure if you had some support for it. You're going to have to show something more concrete than "being generous."

Again, you assume that the simplest form of life observable is the simplest form of life. That's like saying all the species in the world that I can observe is all the species in the world. We don't know what the simplest is.
Here's a recent article on some of the difficulties in acertaining the number.
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050325-1.htm

QUOTE:Top-down approaches seem to point to a minimum genome size of slightly more than 200 genes. Care should be taken, however, in blindly accepting such a figure. For example, although some gene set A and gene set B may not be common to all bacteria, that does not mean that (A and B) are dispensable. It may well mean that A or B is essential, because the cell has to solve a problem by using either A or B. Only experiments can have the final word on these issues.

We have a thread debating about whether prions or virii constitute life, even though they lack cells. Officially, they're not life, but I'm sure you understand the difference between a virus and a rock.

Heres a website describing how RNA can have catalytic properties and act like enzymes.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho32.htm
Hint: Enzymes can really speed up chemical processes.

Why can't I be invoking natural selection? A sequence doesn't have to be life to produce benefits. Imagine a sequence tha produces an enzyme that protects the sequence and one that attacks and breaks it.

Of course your calculations do not include probablities of producing mechanisms that make proteins, probabilities of making a membrane and the effect of having these mechanisms on producing life...You've already assumed it would be a cell but yet these do not factor into your calculations. Calculating the sequence of DNA is meaningless without considering the factors that can help or hinder the process. And we know there are factors that can help and hinder.

You claim that the calculation show the impossiblity of having a useful DNA sequence but your calculations aren't even remotely useful in showing a ballpark figure.

It will either rain or not tomorrow. Therefore tomorrow will have a 50% chance of rain.

Disregarding every aspect of biology and reducing it to simply classical probabilities is...wrong. It's not that you can't use classical probabilties to figure it out, its just that you have to include important aspects relevant to the problem. Otherwise, there's simply a 50% chance of abiogenesis happening.

[canalon]

I will add a few word to what mithril said. In fact calculating the probability of the life appearing is rather meaning less because, one thing we know for sure is that it happened. Even if the event was highly improbbale (and mithril had a good say about your calculations) it did happened. Indeed the simple fact that you can calculate its probability makes it much more probable than the existence of an extremly improbable outer force able to intelligently design life without being alive. Or maybe you have a good calculation to avoid being suspected of having a double standard?

[Springer]

I am not trying to insult you but I am insulted by your approach to calculating such a number and then claiming it as correct and supporting your conclusion with it.

Regarding million iterations:
If I thought I was being generous and said that there were 99,000 billion atoms in the universe, would I be right? It's not about being generous or not, it's about being accurate. It could be less than a million or more, I wouldn't really care about the figure if you had some support for it. You're going to have to show something more concrete than "being generous."

Again, you assume that the simplest form of life observable is the simplest form of life. That's like saying all the species in the world that I can observe is all the species in the world. We don't know what the simplest is.
Here's a recent article on some of the difficulties in acertaining the number.
http://scienceweek.com/2005/sw050325-1.htm

QUOTE:Top-down approaches seem to point to a minimum genome size of slightly more than 200 genes. Care should be taken, however, in blindly accepting such a figure. For example, although some gene set A and gene set B may not be common to all bacteria, that does not mean that (A and B) are dispensable. It may well mean that A or B is essential, because the cell has to solve a problem by using either A or B. Only experiments can have the final word on these issues.

We have a thread debating about whether prions or virii constitute life, even though they lack cells. Officially, they're not life, but I'm sure you understand the difference between a virus and a rock.

Heres a website describing how RNA can have catalytic properties and act like enzymes.
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho32.htm
Hint: Enzymes can really speed up chemical processes.

Why can't I be invoking natural selection? A sequence doesn't have to be life to produce benefits. Imagine a sequence tha produces an enzyme that protects the sequence and one that attacks and breaks it.

Of course your calculations do not include probablities of producing mechanisms that make proteins, probabilities of making a membrane and the effect of having these mechanisms on producing life...You've already assumed it would be a cell but yet these do not factor into your calculations. Calculating the sequence of DNA is meaningless without considering the factors that can help or hinder the process. And we know there are factors that can help and hinder.

You claim that the calculation show the impossiblity of having a useful DNA sequence but your calculations aren't even remotely useful in showing a ballpark figure.

It will either rain or not tomorrow. Therefore tomorrow will have a 50% chance of rain.

Disregarding every aspect of biology and reducing it to simply classical probabilities is...wrong. It's not that you can't use classical probabilties to figure it out, its just that you have to include important aspects relevant to the problem. Otherwise, there's simply a 50% chance of abiogenesis happening.

Simply stating that one cannot calculate the probability of abiogenesis does not erase the relevance of probability. I realize that no one can know what the probability is, particularly in view of the fact that there is no concrete theory of abiogenesis in existence. You've attempted to throw out my numbers because I make assumptions as to the simplest form of life, yet you can't even give me a ballpark idea of what the simplest form of life might be, and therefore feel justified in dismissing probability arguments.
One way or another, DNA had to become organized. You can propose natural selection, but cannot suggest any specific reason why one sequential arrangement of nucleotide bases would be selected over another. You speak vaguely of factors that "help or hinder the process" of DNA formation. I have no idea what you're talking about.
I am baffled at your refutation of my calculations of DNA self-organization by stating it may rain today or not? What are you talking about?
You say classic probabilities don't apply to biology. In the first place, we are not talking about biological systems in the initial stages of the formation of life. Secondly, all scientic theories, including biology, must conform to laws of probability. Evolutionists have been accustomed to sweeping probability concepts under the rug for the past 150 years, and have convinced themselves that anything is possible, given enough time. All of these grand assumptions of evolution... that birds evolved from reptiles, that plants gradually developed photosynthesis by natural selection... that the genetic code gradually increased in complexity from bacteria to man.... you assume that all of this happened and take it as evidence that anything can happen through natural selection... Yet natural selection has NEVER been demonstrated to be this all powerful selective force in nature... It is only inferred based on preconceived dogma.
As far as viruses.... these are obligate intracellular parasites and cannot be regarded as precursors to a cell because they require a cell for replication. If anything, their existence only serves to emphasize the magnitude of the gap between life and non-life... that life cannot be reduced to anything simpler than a cell.
A final note... don't you find it troubling that there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that intermediate forms between a bacterium and inorganic matter are even possible? If abiogenesis occurred, is there any reason why a continuity shouldn't exist between life and non-life? This was anticipated for decades following Darwin's publication of "Origin", and it was widely believed that a bacterium was a mere mass of "protoplams". Don't you find it troubling that, in attempting to defend abiogenesis, you are confronted with the fact that every form of life prior to a bacterium has become extinct?

[Springer]

I will add a few word to what mithril said. In fact calculating the probability of the life appearing is rather meaning less because, one thing we know for sure is that it happened. Even if the event was highly improbbale (and mithril had a good say about your calculations) it did happened. Indeed the simple fact that you can calculate its probability makes it much more probable than the existence of an extremly improbable outer force able to intelligently design life without being alive. Or maybe you have a good calculation to avoid being suspected of having a double standard?

In other words, you take the existence of life as proof that it evolved. You simply cannot believe it was created, regardless of the fact that there is no rational scientific explanation of how it could have come into existence. You will accept any explanation, regardless of how implausible, as long as it doesn't invoke the need of intelligent design.

[canalon]

In other words, you take the existence of life as proof that it evolved. You simply cannot believe it was created, regardless of the fact that there is no rational scientific explanation of how it could have come into existence. You will accept any explanation, regardless of how implausible, as long as it doesn't invoke the need of intelligent design.

No I take the existence of life as a proof that it could have appeared however improbable it seems on the first place, that's all.
As for the creation, as I was telling you, I found even less probable the existence of an external force able to create/design life. Could you give us some figures? Or explain to us what makes much more likely than spontaneous creation?

And just another thing when you are estimating the probability of apparition of life, you shouldn't restrict your calculations toearth, but include the whole universe.

[Springer]

In other words, you take the existence of life as proof that it evolved. You simply cannot believe it was created, regardless of the fact that there is no rational scientific explanation of how it could have come into existence. You will accept any explanation, regardless of how implausible, as long as it doesn't invoke the need of intelligent design.

No I take the existence of life as a proof that it could have appeared however improbable it seems on the first place, that's all.

You are convinced of the truthfulness of evolution and therefore feel that it does not have to conform to laws of probability to be viable.

As for the creation, as I was telling you, I found even less probable the existence of an external force able to create/design life. Could you give us some figures? Or explain to us what makes much more likely than spontaneous creation?

Your challenge for me to come up with probability figures for creative design is a smokescreen... you know perfectly well that such cannot be done. You are using your incredulity in divine creation as an argument for evolution.

And just another thing when you are estimating the probability of apparition of life, you shouldn't restrict your calculations toearth, but include the whole universe.[/

quote]

If you want to factor in an additional 10^20 possible planets into the equation, be my guest. Now you've increased the probability of DNA self organization to 10^-399,929.

How is it possible to believe in a "scientific theory" that is based on vast improbabilities?

[canalon]

I am convinced of the truthfulness of evolution because I can see happens a lot with my bacteria in the lab, because when I give a look at the unity of all living things I cannot find any other theory that explain the world with such economy and simple ideas. But bring me something that would be even more simple and more able to explain the world as we see it without any Deus ex machina (pun intended) and I will listen to you and probably change opinions.

As for the statistical smokescreen as you call it, I didn't bring it up, I am just trying to use the same arguments as you do. If you can't be convinced of evolution, because abiogenesis is too improbable, how come ID which invokes factors that cannot even be measured can convince you? As a scientist I want effects that can be measured, tested. I know that the historicity inherent to evolution, and the time constraints make it hard to test, but it gives a coherent frame to the way the life appears today. ID, or any creation gives no clue as how to interpret the past no unifying frame to explain the life. It is therefore not scientific, and has no place to be discussed here. You are using a double standard in the way you are wighting your arguments, this cannot lead to a serious discussion. Adress my concerns and I will go on, other wise... Plonk

[mith]

Simply stating that one cannot calculate the probability of abiogenesis does not erase the relevance of probability.

I never said it was impossible, I simply said your approach(using 10^400,000 and other assumptions) would not be correct, hence your probability calculations would be wrong.

I realize that no one can know what the probability is, particularly in view of the fact that there is no concrete theory of abiogenesis in existence. You've attempted to throw out my numbers because I make assumptions as to the simplest form of life, yet you can't even give me a ballpark idea of what the simplest form of life might be, and therefore feel justified in dismissing probability arguments.

I'm throwing out numbers because they're not justified by anything more than "being generous." And did I mention your formula for calculating the total number of combinations was wrong? it's 4^100,000 if we use your numbers.

One way or another, DNA had to become organized. You can propose natural selection, but cannot suggest any specific reason why one sequential arrangement of nucleotide bases would be selected over another.
You speak vaguely of factors that "help or hinder the process" of DNA formation. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Did you even read the link that I posted or my post for that matter? I specifically stated enzymes and catalytic properties and also whether a sequence causes production of things like restriction enzymes(that break DNA sequences) or benign substances.

I am baffled at your refutation of my calculations of DNA self-organization by stating it may rain today or not? What are you talking about?

I'm providing an example of how NOT to use probabilities.
If predicting the weather was simply the chance that something happens out of the total possiblities, then the chance of rain would be 50%, since the possibilites are rain or no rain.
The point is, this prediction would not be considering factors important to weather prediction such as climate, cloud cover etc..
In the same way you're trying to predict the formation of a specific sequence and not even considering any factors that may affect the process(see above).

You say classic probabilities don't apply to biology. In the first place, we are not talking about biological systems in the initial stages of the formation of life.

Neither are we talking about as simplistic a model as you're suggesting.

Secondly, all scientic theories, including biology, must conform to laws of probability. Evolutionists have been accustomed to sweeping probability concepts under the rug for the past 150 years, and have convinced themselves that anything is possible, given enough time. All of these grand assumptions of evolution... that birds evolved from reptiles, that plants gradually developed photosynthesis by natural selection... that the genetic code gradually increased in complexity from bacteria to man.... you assume that all of this happened and take it as evidence that anything can happen through natural selection... Yet natural selection has NEVER been demonstrated to be this all powerful selective force in nature... It is only inferred based on preconceived dogma.

You already stated this argument before, twice I think. And we already provided the answer. Plus this has nothing to do with your argument in this instance which is abiogenesis.

As far as viruses.... these are obligate intracellular parasites and cannot be regarded as precursors to a cell because they require a cell for replication. If anything, their existence only serves to emphasize the magnitude of the gap between life and non-life... that life cannot be reduced to anything simpler than a cell.

I did not say they were precursors to cells, but what I am saying is that not everything is easily separated into life an non-life as your calculation method would suggest. A virus does need machinery found in a cell to reproduce but does it actually need a cell?

A final note... don't you find it troubling that there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that intermediate forms between a bacterium and inorganic matter are even possible? If abiogenesis occurred, is there any reason why a continuity shouldn't exist between life and non-life? This was anticipated for decades following Darwin's publication of "Origin", and it was widely believed that a bacterium was a mere mass of "protoplams". Don't you find it troubling that, in attempting to defend abiogenesis, you are confronted with the fact that every form of life prior to a bacterium has become extinct?

Yawn, give me a harder one Springer. Ever hear of the great extinction and climate shifts? And what kind of evidence do you expect we should find? Fossils of protoplasm?

Or perhaps you're asking why we do not see them today since primates still exist even though we branched from them?
Well, do you see any primordial soup, other than the one in the back of my refridgerator? Notice the oxygen in the air? How about the ozone layer? We have radiated, mercury poisoned, acidified and generally affected the environment in many ways. Do you think our present environment would produce an intermediary between non-life and bacteria?

Well, I suggest we wait a couple billion years to find out for sure, but in the meantime I won't be troubled

[Springer]

quote="mithrilhack"

Again, I am basing my arguments on observable science. There is no form of life simpler than a bacterium, and you ridicule my reasoning by assuming that to be a starting point. You are in the realm of raw speculation in your suppositions of the existence of single cell life precursors.

Did you even read the link that I posted or my post for that matter? I specifically stated enzymes and catalytic properties and also whether a sequence causes production of things like restriction enzymes(that break DNA sequences) or benign substances.

Any thoughts as to what the minimum self replicating molecule might be that could create these enzymes? What is the probability of such a molecule forming on its own? How could natural selection work on randomly interacting molecules to allow for such a molecule to form? These are enormous barriers that evolution has no way of explaining.

I'm providing an example of how NOT to use probabilities.
If predicting the weather was simply the chance that something happens out of the total possiblities, then the chance of rain would be 50%, since the possibilites are rain or no rain.
The point is, this prediction would not be considering factors important to weather prediction such as climate, cloud cover etc..
In the same way you're trying to predict the formation of a specific sequence and not even considering any factors that may affect the process(see above).

You assume that some unknown factors existed but cannot elucidate what those factors might have been.

Neither are we talking about as simplistic a model as you're suggesting.

Until you can come up with any specific model, you don't have a theory.

I did not say they were precursors to cells, but what I am saying is that not everything is easily separated into life an non-life as your calculation method would suggest. A virus does need machinery found in a cell to reproduce but does it actually need a cell?

If you believe what we observe, then, "yes".

Or perhaps you're asking why we do not see them today since primates still exist even though we branched from them?
Well, do you see any primordial soup, other than the one in the back of my refridgerator? Notice the oxygen in the air? How about the ozone layer? We have radiated, mercury poisoned, acidified and generally affected the environment in many ways. Do you think our present environment would produce an intermediary between non-life and bacteria?

Of course I don't expect to find fossilized bacteria. You think it's unreasonable to expect a continuity between life and non-life today if abiogenesis occurred? You can't blame the lack of pre-cellular life on ozone depletion or mercury poisoning, because these are very recent events.
To sum up your evidence for the spontaneous origin of life: You don't have any model of abiogenesis that conforms to laws of science. You have no evidence that a primordial soup ever existed, and cannot point to any living transitional forms between bacteria and non-life. You cannot propose any hypothetical transitional forms of the ancient past that can stand up to any sort of scientific scrutiny. You assume that optimal conditions existed billions of years ago for life to form, but cannot specify any mechanism as to how such could be possible. You assume that conditions have since changed which conveniently caused mass extinction of every living precellular form that evolved over hundreds of millions of years.
My contention is this: abiogenesis as a theory doesn't have a leg to stand on. The only "evidence" that you or anyone can offer is an appeal to the veracity of the general theory of evolution. If evolution is true, then abiogenesis must have occurred. However, I see abiogenesis as a fatal flaw to evolutionary theory. Evolution is far from "proven". Therefore, one highly questionable theory cannot be used as evidence to defend an even more tenuous one. On the contrary, the implausibility of abiogenesis introduces a fatal flaw to evolutionary theory. Abiogenesis is impossible... therefore, intelligent design is operative... therefore ToE by natural selection is false, because ToE states that there is no need for intelligent design.

[mith]

Again, I am basing my arguments on observable science. There is no form of life simpler than a bacterium, and you ridicule my reasoning by assuming that to be a starting point. You are in the realm of raw speculation in your suppositions of the existence of single cell life precursors.

God is not observable and yet you wouldn't discount him right? A better example would be mendeleev's formation of the table of elements. While everyone failed because they tried to put all the observed and known elements into a model, Mendeleev realized that there was a pattern and was justified in leaving spaces for new elements.
The point I'm trying to make is not to speculate that there is another starting point but to show that your argument's flaws. You keep saying that it has to be cellular because that's what we see today. The simplest organism of today is not necessarily the simplest organism that can be created. Read alex's post about RNA world.

Any thoughts as to what the minimum self replicating molecule might be that could create these enzymes? What is the probability of such a molecule forming on its own? How could natural selection work on randomly interacting molecules to allow for such a molecule to form? These are enormous barriers that evolution has no way of explaining.

That's the point I'm trying to make! While you're running off calculating(incorrectly) DNA combinations, you haven't even considered these elements. You're the one trying to prove the impossiblity of abiogenesis, you figure it out.

You assume that some unknown factors existed but cannot elucidate what those factors might have been.

......Let me say it slower this time.. E-N-Z-Y-M-E-S. Read the posts!!! Frankly you're making me quite angy claiming I did not specify what these factors are when I clearly posted them twice. Three times now.

Until you can come up with any specific model, you don't have a theory.

Not the point of the discussion. I'm simply stating that your attempt to prove whatever it is you're trying to prove is wrong.

If you believe what we observe, then, "yes".

See above.

Of course I don't expect to find fossilized bacteria. You think it's unreasonable to expect a continuity between life and non-life today if abiogenesis occurred? You can't blame the lack of pre-cellular life on ozone depletion or mercury poisoning, because these are very recent events.

Was that all I stated? I believe not, oxygen, predation, change in climate(not human contributed global warming). Read my posts in their entirety.

To sum up your evidence for the spontaneous origin of life: You don't have any model of abiogenesis that conforms to laws of science. You have no evidence that a primordial soup ever existed, and cannot point to any living transitional forms between bacteria and non-life. You cannot propose any hypothetical transitional forms of the ancient past that can stand up to any sort of scientific scrutiny. You assume that optimal conditions existed billions of years ago for life to form, but cannot specify any mechanism as to how such could be possible.

Again you're shifting the argument. If you do research you'll find all you need to know about abiogenesis and evolution. But you decided to support your conclusions with erroneous calculations. I have already refuted those and now you're back to square one. Gee, why don't you go back and read those old posts? Those links would be helpful if you're too lazy to google up the evidence.

You assume that conditions have since changed which conveniently caused mass extinction of every living precellular form that evolved over hundreds of millions of years.

See above.

My contention is this: abiogenesis as a theory doesn't have a leg to stand on. The only "evidence" that you or anyone can offer is an appeal to the veracity of the general theory of evolution. If evolution is true, then abiogenesis must have occurred. However, I see abiogenesis as a fatal flaw to evolutionary theory. Evolution is far from "proven". Therefore, one highly questionable theory cannot be used as evidence to defend an even more tenuous one. On the contrary, the implausibility of abiogenesis introduces a fatal flaw to evolutionary theory.

Do your research.

Abiogenesis is impossible...

Want to show me your math skills again? You've said that you're not a mathematician and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to make your calculation mistakes, but I will not allow you to use those erroneous results to "prove" anything.

therefore, intelligent design is operative... therefore ToE by natural selection is false, because ToE states that there is no need for intelligent design.

Can you tell me what's wrong with this argument? I'm sure you could but you don't want to.

[Springer]

God is not observable and yet you wouldn't discount him right?

You make that statement as if it's a self-evident truth. There is abundant evidence of God's existence. Einstein said, "The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Just because you don't see evidence doesn't mean it's not there.

A better example would be mendeleev's formation of the table of elements. While everyone failed because they tried to put all the observed and known elements into a model, Mendeleev realized that there was a pattern and was justified in leaving spaces for new elements.
The point I'm trying to make is not to speculate that there is another starting point but to show that your argument's flaws. You keep saying that it has to be cellular because that's what we see today. The simplest organism of today is not necessarily the simplest organism that can be created. Read alex's post about RNA world.

Your analogy reveals to me that you think evolution is an all-but-established fact and therefore abiogenesis must have occurred as a natural extension of evolution. I think it's obvious that life could not have possibly evolved from non-life to a cell without any transitional form. The only reason you're proposing some sort of simpler organism is because that is the only way that abiogenesis could be remotely possible... not because there is any empiric evidence to suggest that such a form of life would actually be viable.

That's the point I'm trying to make! While you're running off calculating(incorrectly) DNA combinations, you haven't even considered these elements. You're the one trying to prove the impossiblity of abiogenesis, you figure it out.

I've pointed out that the simplest form of life known is a bacterium. You're the one saying that abiogenesis occurred... now you're asking me to come up with something that I think would be a viable precursor. That's something that you need to do, because I'm saying that there isn't one.

......Let me say it slower this time.. E-N-Z-Y-M-E-S. Read the posts!!! Frankly you're making me quite angy claiming I did not specify what these factors are when I clearly posted them twice. Three times now.

Your posts are dodging the question. You haven't remotely explained to me how specific sequences of DNA could have come together by natural selection.

Again you're shifting the argument. If you do research you'll find all you need to know about abiogenesis and evolution.

I've done research and find nothing to suppport the contention that abiogenesis is possible.

But you decided to support your conclusions with erroneous calculations. I have already refuted those and now you're back to square one.

You've refuted my calculations with your opinions, but haven't proven them wrong. I've told you... I don't care if you substitute your numbers. DNA can never form on its own... whether in steps or all at once.

Want to show me your math skills again? You've said that you're not a mathematician and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to make your calculation mistakes, but I will not allow you to use those erroneous results to "prove" anything.

You're antics reveal the transparency of your arguments all too clearly.

[mith]

You make that statement as if it's a self-evident truth. There is abundant evidence of God's existence. Einstein said, "The more I study science, the more I believe in God." Just because you don't see evidence doesn't mean it's not there.

Einstein's quote doesn't make anything true or false, just as Einstein's religion has nothing to do with his calculations. Although I do agree with your second point.

Your analogy reveals to me that you think evolution is an all-but-established fact and therefore abiogenesis must have occurred as a natural extension of evolution. I think it's obvious that life could not have possibly evolved from non-life to a cell without any transitional form. The only reason you're proposing some sort of simpler organism is because that is the only way that abiogenesis could be remotely possible... not because there is any empiric evidence to suggest that such a form of life would actually be viable.

Saying something is obvious doesn't make it true. I could say the sun is obviously circling the earth. And I've already addressed the question of empirical evidence in my previous posts, what do you expect to find?

I've pointed out that the simplest form of life known is a bacterium. You're the one saying that abiogenesis occurred... now you're asking me to come up with something that I think would be a viable precursor. That's something that you need to do, because I'm saying that there isn't one.

I haven't asked you to come up with a precursor. I've asked you to consider factors which affect the formation of cells which I have already stated.

Your posts are dodging the question. You haven't remotely explained to me how specific sequences of DNA could have come together by natural selection.

They don't come together by natural selection, they form with the help of factors involved(see above). But what makes one sequence last can be subject to natural selection(see previous posts).

You've refuted my calculations with your opinions, but haven't proven them wrong. I've told you... I don't care if you substitute your numbers. DNA can never form on its own... whether in steps or all at once.

Opinion? I think it's hardly my opinion how to calculate the total number of different combinations given 4 bases. 4^x when x represents the length of the sequence. And if your figures aren't truely supported(supported by more than "being generous"), why wouldn't I dismiss them?

Want to show me your math skills again? You've said that you're not a mathematician and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow you to make your calculation mistakes, but I will not allow you to use those erroneous results to "prove" anything.

You're antics reveal the transparency of your arguments all too clearly.

You claim there is no evidence for evolution or abiogenesis. Well we've already told you to google for it and indeed there is evidence for it. You can opt to not believe all you want.
But then you also want us to disbelieve by disproving it and showing it as impossible. As yet, you haven't shown any valid(see previous posts) calculation or study that supports your conclusion.