Are you further suggesting that we ignore the odds of any intermediate step at all? That the chain must appear, fully funtional, all at once? That, for example, a 10 base-pair-long strand links with a chain of 6 and then encounters a chain of 20 somewhere else?
And finally, are you suggesting that there is only 1 possible planet upon which life can arise?
For the probability of a single reaction producing at once a chain of 96 that is the single magic target sequence, the math works. No one is arguing with the calculations. The arguments people are making are simply that this particular mathmatical model makes several unfounded assumptions regarding the mechanisms of chemical interactions and the absence of intermediate reactions (to say nothing of the complete ommission of any type of catalyst), and is an incorrect representation of the possibility of abiogenisis.
Also, I would like to reiterate what one poster has already pointed out, that the mathematics are a model for abiogenisis, not evolution. The two are related, but the are not inseparable.
Yes, math in general works and no one is arguing with the calculations per se. I'm unaware of anyone ever claiming that Life could be either created or sustained with a DNA strand comprised of 96 or fewer base pairs, however.
Do you have evidence that would substantiate such a claim, or is that speculation on your part?
Just to be clear, the math proof for this thread does not deal with an instantaneous formation of data, but rather with the formation of data in the proper sequence over time.
By definition, math for sequences does not ignore intermediate steps.