Once you read and understand all three linked articles and comments, you might discern that the author is discussing the probability of DATA being stored, not chemicals reacting with each other.
Whether we are looking at the data in a story such as Shakespeare's Hamlet, or at the data that distinguishes ameoba DNA from that of the DNA of an ox, the mathematical probabilities of said data being formed naturally, without intelligent intervention of any kind, is identical.
Hence, the math is valid for a probability proof of either.
If the author claims that the proof show evolution is impossible he has to take into into account how the properties of the chemicals affect the data.
What a marvelous obfuscation. Perhaps you should answer my other posts:
1. What is the data content of your Hamlet string?
2. What is the data content for a simple 32 element self-replicating peptide string?
3. Why does "Data" matter at all - the real issue is the actual chemistry itself. Treating the problem as information or data is an abstraction. But if the chemistry indicates that the molecules in fact form very easily, in spite of your abstraction, that means that the abstraction is inapposite, not that the chemistry is wrong. Your monkeys are at best an analogy; the nature of chemical interactions reveals that the analogy is ill-considered.
4. Again, your example does not allow for the selection and replication of data. It must fail.
You will illuminate this, I hope. "Data" is a construct, chemicals do exist and are observed combining into more complex structures.
As Physicist has pointed out, there is no absolute way to divide chemicals into living and non-living. The more we study, the more we find chemicals shading into living things. And vice-versa.