The link works on my browser, but that is not a benefit for the author.
Here is what I mean.
This is taken from his Combined Probability Page
What is wrong with this analysis?
"Wait," some may object, "but that doesn't make any sense. If you play enough hands of poker, you will eventually draw a full house." Right, but the analogy doesn't work (this is the great danger of analogies- they don't always apply). A full house in poker is different from the lottery because no matter how many times you draw a new hand, your objective (a full house) is always the same. But when you play the lottery, the objective changes every week because the winning number is different. Instead of racking up multiple attempts against a fixed target, you're trying to hit a moving target. The odds don't improve with multiple attempts.
Yes many people do not realize that if one plays the lottery and the chance of winning is 1 in 50 million, the next lottery they play the chance of winning will still be 1 in 50 million. This is the reason many gamblers lose their shirts. They think that a run of bad luck means that the next time they bet their odds will be better because of all the losses. Not correct, they are the same as the first time they lost.
This is the problem with random mutations also. If the chance of a particular series of mutations occurring is 1 chance in 10 to the power of 100 (a 1 with a hundred zeros behind it) the chances of it occurring after 1 to the power of 50 is still 1 to the power of 100. That is why such a chance is called astronomical odds and why many scientists consider anything that has such a small likelihood of occurring as "impossible".
Well, it sucks, that's what's wrong. I found this on the same page.
The moral of this story is that you must be very careful when dealing with combined probabilities.:-)