Welcome, FI!
You obviously put some thought into your first post, but I do find it problematic. If my criticisms below are off-mark because I misunderstood your calculations, please correct me.
My original post started with complexity-of-life, one organism, at the top...
To me, this assumption is where you made a (first) mistake, by assuming an overly complex organism. My current understanding is that current abiogenesis theory suggests nothing of the sort, but rather that simple replicators (RNA-life, or chemical-life) evolved into what we now consider organisms.
I believe the minimum length of a self-replicating RNA strand is 26 bases; and the smallest RNA with catalytic activity is only 7 bases. These catalytic RNAs are very easy to produce in the lab by synthesizing a bunch of random RNA strands and selecting those with activity. This is far simpler a scenario then the one you begin with - the speculation is more on what the environment was like at the time of the arisal of this "simple life", and how rare or common purely chemical synthesis of such future biomolecules might have been.
It seems to me that you are also considering the interactions of your molecules to be random, and the source of your molecules to be global, which both also strike me as false assumptions. Pre-life likely arose as part of a directional chemical reaction in a region rich with the specific necessary chemical components and catalysts, not by random interaction of all organic matter on the planet.
Your calculations may be interesting in that they seem to counter ID/creo improbability arguments head-on; but unfortunately by doing so one is giving in to their (sometimes intentionally) false assumptions and ignorance of what abiogenesis theory is really about.
™ Version 4.2
