The main deterministic law involved in the process of evolution is supposed to be natural selection. Roughly speaking, this is the idea that some organisms are better at surviving and producing offspring than their peers, and the fact that they leave more offspring will mean that their genes will tend to proliferate in future generations. Thus, the winners produce more winners, and the losers tend to fade away. There are lots of arguments that one could have about natural selection, but none of them are particularly relevant to this document. Instead, I take issue with the random part of the mechanism. (I may address the deterministic part in a future monkeys document, though, so stay tuned to Nutters.org!) In order to keep the natural selection part as far out of the picture as possible, let us consider the genesis of the first living cell.
Strawman. Selection pressures were active long before the first cell developed. They acted strongly upon even the first self-replicating chemicals. This is all so much hand-waving bunk.
Monkey math is particularly relevant to theories of chemical evolution
Wrong. The author does not even seem to realize the huge differences between chemistry and typing monkeys: that not all outcomes are equally probable, and that continued chemical reactions favor the formation of complex chemicals - each failed attempt does not put you back to square one.
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.