The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler. Further, Prior to life, biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life.
Airplanes did not start out with the assembly of a modern Boeing 777.
It also ignores the fact that when calculating the odds of having arrived at a conspicuous event was simply by chance, one must add in all the other results that one would find just as conspicuous or more so. For example, if the monkey had typed "Darwin was right" or "Darwin was wrong" or "Monkeys Rule!" or many other phrases we would find conspicuous.
But the basic charge of it not being feasible to get to the first life that could start taking advantage of generation is pretty valid. As biology advanced evolutionists had anticipated that they would be able to do it in the lab. Of course we find the opposite. We find it less and less feasible as our Empirical knowledge base grows. So much so, that Abiogenesis is ASSUMED rather than DEFENDED when an evolutionary naturalist like Dawkins is pushed on the subject.
Specifically, grand assertions of overwhelming certainty are claimed for "Evolution". And this certantity is used to support Naturalism. But when one presses to the lack of evidence for Abiogenesis to be even feasible (since it can't be done in a lab--and we have no idea how to do it in a lab on purpose, and yet its maintained it happened by accident)...and clearly its a complete mischaracterization to call the evidence for Abiogenesis strong or certain....then suddenly "Evolution" does not include Abiogenesis. So we have a fallacy of equivocation here.
Those complex products interacting in complex ways are not alive - to quote Bones from Star Trek, "They're dead Jim". And it's not as simple as some chemicals interacting here on earth or in space.
Look, we know DNA has the following
1. Functional Information
2. Encoder
3. Error Correction
4. Decoder
This is a big problem for a purely naturalistic explanation for how life arose. You have information in a symbolic representation and a reading frame code. But beyond this, a formalization of semantic closure would need to be in place prior to the first cell. This cannot just happen by accident.
Oh?