Okay. A number of individuals have already pointed out that the assumptions x,y,z...are incorrect and so, the mathematical "proof" is neither here nor there.
Now, you've moved yourself into a position where you make the assumption that no matter what this "proof" means, there is a larger analogy for life-coding DNA and that is software. Presumably, this claim is supposed to imply that since people can design software, and since people are intelligent, all of life is designed by an intelligent force other than nature. Nevermind that this argument is invalid.
Since our full description of biological life or life-coding DNA is no more precise than semantic theories, mathematical simulations of phenomena evidenced from life, such as natural selection or other individual aspects, are but partial approximations of those semantic descriptions.
That's an incorrect and flawed premise, so it follows that your conclusion from said premise is likewise in error.
The math in this thread is valid for data sequencing itself naturally (i.e., without any form of intelligent aid). You can apply said math, with minimal changes as appropriate, to a vast variety of elements and situations that contain or construct data (e.g. CD-ROMs holding software programs, DNA strands holding genetic code for a specific life form, paper pages that hold quotes from Shakespeare, etc.).
Furthermore, a careful, thoughtful, intelligent reading and understanding of the math involved in the article fo this thread would reveal to most intelligent readers that Evolution is entirely possible naturally, should life be capable of being formed with 96 or fewer sequential bases in a DNA structure.
Math is math. It doesn't hold an undeserved political or social bias. Your problem probably stems from your predisposed idea that Evolution is the answer, and no doubt such a preconceived notion has a very difficult task accepting that simple math can reveal just how improbable that answer might be. Life with 96 or fewer codons?! An amoebae requires Millions of such codons!
Nonetheless, your preconcieved notions are hardly disproofs of math.
Human software coding is a perfectly valid analogy to genetic DNA programming. That statement of fact stands on its own (although I've certainly posted numerous supporting posts to you as you've tried to deny that fact).
Does that mean that just because software and DNA can be programmed, that Life had to have been created by an intelligent designer? No, and only a serious logical misreading of that fact would result in such a juvenile conclusion. What it does mean is that it is very likely that an intelligent designer could create life, but to confuse "could create" with "did create" is to make an unsupportable leap of logic, and that unsupportable leap is probably why you claimed that the argument was "invalid" (above), in error.