Makes sense. Now, the correct sequence in the proof is one particular sequence of letters whereas the correct sequence of chemicals is ANY sequence that creates life. Do you think this distinction can be ignored?
Regards.
Take a look at 336 if you have a min.
I doubt that upping the quantity of correct sequences by a few Billion (from 1) will appreciably alter the calculated probability, especially if the time limit is contained to the existence of Earth (say, 17 Billion years to be generous).
The math calculation is only trying to hit 41 specific letters in a row. After 96, there is no probability of success. The number of base (A, C, G, and T) combinations in a primitive life form such as an amoebae could easily exceed 600 Million. If we can't get to 96, then we certainly aren't getting to 600 Million sequentially correct datum (naturally, anyway).
This is not a linear equation. Upping our potential "correct answers" by a few Billion won't appreciably change the probability.
On the other hand, if Life can be formed with 96 or fewer base pairs in the proper sequence (or if substantially more than several Billion unique life forms have been observed), then the math would indicate some potential for Life to form naturally.
But 600 Million is a far cry from 96 when one looks at the exponential nature of this equation.