That's incorrect. Watson isn't referring to the probability / improbability of chemicals to self-form. Instead, he is referring to the ability of chemicals to randomly form, store, and sequence data in an organized manner.
It is DATA "self-forming", not chemicals that are in question. Whether the data that we are looking for is the first sentence of Hamlet or the first gene in DNA, Watson's math applies equally.
To sequence that data, whether into a story in a book or into a working gene in DNA, the mathematical odds of the event happening randomly, without Intelligent Intervention, are precisely the same.
Ergo, it is you who is guilty of oversimplifying, not Watson.
It is DATA "self-forming", not chemicals that are in question. Whether the data that we are looking for is the first sentence of Hamlet or the first gene in DNA, Watson's math applies equally.
What do you know, I found the More monkeys document. You are right. (Write it down, guys.)
I don't know that he has properly estimated the number of instances of "monkeys" in the universe, however. What is the current estimate of the Drake equation, for example?
I also do not accept other parts of the document, but that will have to wait until I get home from work to explain fully.
Except,
1. Nobody suggests that DNA emerged fully formed - it was proceded by an age of RNA-based chemistry.
2. Pre-RNA molecules/structures would still have to be self-replicating, thus introducing a variety of selection pressures that woudl accelerate the rate of information retention for re-use in a subsequent iteration.
3. How much "data" is contained in a self-replicating compound? Is it more or less than in a sentence of Hamlet? Your Hamlet string has behind it a whole language, with idiom and abstract meaning, embeded in a complex cultural context. The compound only needs to specify how to make a copy of itself.