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.
So do you think that formative DNA chemical reactions, and this statement:
Watson's math addresses the probability/improbability of data self-forming/sequencing itself in any natural (i.e., an area without intelligent intervention) environment.
are independent suppositions? I submit to you that they are not. DNA is formed by single amino acids and chains of amino acids that chemically bond together to form longer and longer chains (in the standard model). The data that makes up DNA is represented by the individual amino acids. The standard model does not mention that the first DNA formed in a sequential manner. Nor does it say that it is a truly random process, since the chemical bonds that connect the bits of data together are guided by the likelihood of the chemical reactions. How can you say that the model says anything accurate about the probabilities of life, when it doesn't accurately depict reality with it's initial conditions?