"The error is you are reifying math." 
Nonsense. Even if I was treating abstract math as material (i.e. reifying), there would still be no error in the logic postulated above (reifying per se is never sufficient evidence of a logical fallacy), and it's rather arguable that even treating mathematical instruction sets as material would be incorrect even on its face, to boot.
The programming code exists, after all (hence, you have actual A, C, G, and T bases in real strands of physical DNA).
Nonsense. Even if I was treating abstract math as material (i.e. reifying), there would still be no error in the logic postulated above (reifying per se is never sufficient evidence of a logical fallacy), and it's rather arguable that even treating mathematical instruction sets as material would be incorrect even on its face, to boot. Gee, missed this. It isn't arguable. Thanks for proving the reification. I can see I was right, this is a rather futile discussion.