The author's math effectively covers the sequencing of data, be it via magnetism on your hard drive, chemical reactions forming DNA strands, monkeys pounding letters to quote Shakespeare by accident, et al.
And you are also missing the point. I asked you earlier to show me a published work that showed us that DNA is formed in the manner that Watson says it does. You've had a month....any luck? None of the works that you showed me at that time did so, and I've been very patient. Please put up, my patience is running out.
And so is your logic. Watson doesn't address how DNA double-helix structures are formed. That's yet another point on which you are completely off base. Watson's math addresses the probability/improbability of data self-forming/sequencing itself in any natural (i.e., an area without intelligent intervention) environment.
DNA contains data. That's why Watson's math applies to it. To differentiate between various double-helix structures of DNA, say to tell between an amoebae and an anteater, one examines the data contained therein (encoded by the A, C, G, and T bases). Likewise, to identify which program resides on identical (in appearance) unlabeled CD ROM's, one looks at the data files contained therein. It is the data that makes the difference, not how the CD ROM was physically formed.
Contrary to your frantic arm-waving above, how "DNA is formed" is entirely beside the point.