He simply uses the monkey analogy to make his *math* readable for laymen.
His probability math itself is quite sound (which is why Darwinists can't post math of their own to refute it). Said math is also quite germane to whether or not genetic DNA programming can sequence itself (or not) without aid (read: external bias).
Indeed. That is what analogies are used for. That is also a limitation of analogy. They are an abstraction, they are not the phenomenon in question.
"His probability math itself is quite sound (which is why Darwinists can't post math of their own to refute it). Said math is also quite germane to whether or not genetic DNA programming can sequence itself (or not) without aid (read: external bias).
His math is sound but misapplied.
The author presented his work to address the creation of the Universe, many IDists use it as an argument against Abiogenesis, but you seem to be saying that it can be applied to the formation of new traits. Is this correct?
Since the argument really has nothing to do with the BB and the start of the Universe I guess we can ignore that idea.
As far as it applying to the formation of new traits you'll have to explain how this particular calculation has anything to do with the modification of existing DNA.
Since you've made this particular calculation an absolute with respect to evolution then all it would take to debunk it is to show a single point where the assumptions affecting the calculation do not reflect reality. I can actually show more than one.
The calculation is based on the random creation of a string of letters that roughly correlate with the molecules making up a DNA sequence. However the way molecules combine is deterministic, not random.
The calculation is focused in a single specific string from out of all possible combinations of a letters of the same specific length. The number of viable DNA strings is not limited to one. In fact the number is unknown, it could be a small percentage of all possible strings or it could be a significant percentage. It is certainly many more than one.
There is no fitness function in the calculations. DNA strings are modified a number of ways, most ways do not express morphologies that can be classed as either beneficial or deleterious at the time. Changes in DNA happens incrementally, with neutral changes building upon neutral changes. Only when the environment changes do they become advantageous or deleterious. The deleterious changes die off and the beneficial changes spread through the population.
The calculations presented, and your comment, indicate a requirement that the specific string develop as a unit, at one time, and be functional. DNA strings in living organisms have no such constraints. Changes can be a simple, or a not so simple, modification to an existing string or a duplication of a substring.
My main point is that the calculations do not apply to nature but to a straw man.