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.
Since everyone seemed to explain things better than I could I bailed out of this discussion. But since you seem to not get things (and you called me out elsewhere), I thought I'd see if you've learned anything yet.
You haven't.
First. Tell me exactly what data you think is stored in DNA that isn't stored in any other molecule.
Second. Please construct an accurate analogy between the math presented here, and the real world. This is how most science works. Math for math's sake doesn't mean anything most times, even in probability arguments like this one. What is the author trying to model here? What are his assumptions? Are they too simplistic? Is he complete in his analysis? (This research changes how if I change X, or Y?)
All I see here is a statistical argument with no basis in the real world. So, again, what do you think the author is trying to model?
Data isn't stored inside molecules (at least not for the purposes of this math discussion), but rather, is stored in the sequence of molecules/base pairs (A, C, G, and T) that comprise the double-helix physical structure of DNA.
"All I see here is a statistical argument with no basis in the real world. So, again, what do you think the author is trying to model?" - ThinkPlease
The author is correctly calculating the mathematical probability of useful/desired data sequencing itself in a chaotic, non-intelligent environment.
The author's math is just as applicable to the real world as it is to statistics, so long as we are discussing the sequencing of events or data in either.
So whether we are discussing the probability / improbability of a series of coins all landing with heads face up, a sentence in Shakespeare's Hamlet being generated by monkeys banging on keyboards, or sequencing the data that would distinguish amoebae DNA double-helixes from human DNA double-helixes in a (until that moment) lifeless environment, the math is perfectly valid.