Richard's First Mistake: a "Lee Peptide" is not a PNA 

(See, "Q's Response to Richard Carrier: About the Debate," for context)

(See also, "Q's Open Challenge to Richard Carrier", and "The 'Fatal Flaw' with Richard Carrier's '1 in 10^41' Argument for Abiogenesis")

The first mistake Richard makes—before getting to any "Fatal Flaws"—is that he conflates "Lee peptide" with Peptide Nucleic Acids (PNAs); writing, for example:

• "The probability of a self-replicating form of PNA arising by chance accident from just those kinds of mechanisms is now known to be at least 1 in 10^41." ("Oh No! Biogenesis is Impossible?")

• "Simple self-replicating PNA strands are an established fact (the Lee peptide being just one of them...)." ("Biogenesis and the Laws of Evidence")

• "A factor of 10^43 is 100-times more than the 10^41 odds against a spontaneous Lee peptide formation, thus accounting for the dozens of PNA molecules needed to form that specific chain (which is less than forty monomers long) while ensuring a near 100% occurrence." ("Biogenesis and the Laws of Evidence")

But "Lee peptides" and PNAs are two completely different types of molecules, and thus, "apples and oranges". A "Lee peptide" is a simple polypeptide string of amino acids (thirty-two amino acids, to be precise). By contrast, a Peptide Nucleic Acid (PNA) is a synthetic, "totally artificial molecule" not found in nature, "consisting of a polypeptide backbone with nucleic acid bases attached as side chains.." Importantly, "The polypeptide backbone of PNA is not identical to that of natural proteins...[but] is designed to space out the bases that it carries at the same distances as found in genuine nucleic acids. This enables a strand of PNA to base pair with a complementary strand of DNA or RNA." ("Peptide Nucleic Acid" Science Direct).

PNA is simpler than DNA and RNA, because it has a simpler polypeptide-like (though not identical) backbone in place of the more complex sugar-phosphate backbone found in DNA and RNA. But the attachment of this polypeptide-like backbone to nucleobases (i.e., "A", "C", "G", "T" in the diagram above) makes it far more complex than simple polypeptide chains of amino acids like the "Lee peptide". As such, the probability of spontaneous formation of a PNA is not a simple, straightforward calculation like McFadden's (2002) "twenty possible [canonical] amino acids in each of thirty-two positions" for the "Lee peptide" (i.e., 1 in 20^32 = 10^41). Consequently, PNAs have nothing to do with Richard's "1 in 10^41" claim, which only applies to a "Lee" polypeptide. 

Richard's mistake does not affect his overarching argument, but it does invalidate part of it to the extent that he confuses "Lee peptides" with PNA and erroneously asserts on this basis that "[t]he probability of a self-replicating form of PNA arising by chance accident...[is] at least 1 in 10^41."