Okay, so I lied. I don't know why, but I'm going to offer one more response.
The math has not been challenged. No one has tried. The math in the article is correct insofar as the formulas given are legit and the results of the calculations are properly reported. The posters who stand opposed to the article have argued (successfully in most cases) is that the math is misapplied-- that the math correctly describes the probability of a system almost, but not quite, entirely unlike those systems found in nature. The math is correct IF chemical reactions are entirely random and IF each chain is exactly a likely as every other chain and IF each chain is examined as a discrete, independent unit and IF said chains are absolutely unaffected by every single previous event.
The author must make these assumptions (and several others, many of which have already been identified elsewhere on this thread) in order to claim that his calculations apply. But his model is far too simplistic and simply cannot account for a continuous sequence of data. He says "Look at how big these numbers are, it could never happen," and provides some fairly standard discrete probability formulas, ignoring entirely the fact that we do not live in a discrete world.
You have been more gracious than most, and I will readily admit that. But for now we are talking past each other. My posts, at least, are for the lurkers, anyway. Neither of us is going to persuade the other, but I respect your willingness to stay above personal attack and insult; I have attempted (mostly successfully, I hope) to offer you the same courtesy.
Best,
Condorman
And that is the point upon which we disagree. You are arguing two sides. On the one hand, you say that the math doesn't apply to chemical reactions because said reactions aren't random (and to that point I generally agree), but then you turn around and say that the author's math doesn't account or apply to data (and on that point, I certainly disagree).
Data is different from chemical reactions. We can have chemicals react all day long, but that doesn't mean that they store data.
Of all the chemical structures in the world, DNA stood alone in storing data until Man came along and created paintings and later writing.
But it wasn't the chemicals that comprised DNA that was unique. Those chemicals are found in plenty of other compounds in which data is NOT stored, in fact. Nor is it the fact that those particular acids and bases reacted or linked with each other, as they do that in other compounds as well.
No, what makes DNA so intriguing is that those chemicals are sequenced in a manner that accurately stores data (and then going beyond the math in this thread, that DNA processes said stored data as well as replicates itself).
And the author's math is entirely valid for calculating the probability of data managing to sequence itself without intelligent intervention.
Whether we are calculating the probability / improbability of useful data sequencing on your hard drive after a lightning strike (or two or 17 Billion), or that we are calculating the odds of data sequencing itself into DNA that's capable of creating a sustainable life form, or even calculating the odds of monkeys typing out Shakespeare's Hamlet, the math in this thread as well as the First Math Proof thread is equally valid.
This is because in every event mentioned above, it is the sequence of data, not the mere odds of valid chemical reactions occuring, that we are calculating.
Lurker to Condorman: Thank You.