XD his "Morse code" beads crack me up; we only have his word that he didn't make that necklace that way intentionally.
Also, a fundamental issue with his type of argument:
1. it's about abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution starts with the first living cell, not with DNA by itself.
2. This video seems rather old based on the quality, so poor Chuck of the past hasn't been exposed to the abiogenesis experiments circa de 2013 in which protocells developed. Hence why he acts as if the prevailing idea is that DNA came first (when the RNA world theory actually is the current front runner for abiogenesis).
3. Evolution doesn't claim that DNA was random to begin with... or make any claims as to its origin. In fact, due to the selective pressures of evolution, the sequence of genetic material distinctly is not random; that which improves survival and reproduction persists better than that which does not in and of itself makes certain sequences more likely to be seen than others, because those are the sequences that would withstand the test of time and be passed on the most successfully. Thus, Chuck's equations don't apply, since they assume all sequences are equally likely, and this is not true.
4. Another problem with his argument is that for him to have a leg to stand on, he'd have to know how many times DNA/RNA was generated before life existed on this planet. It's impossible to know that, and given that seemingly impossible events can occur if a large enough number of tries are done, any number Chuck comes up with is essentially meaningless (even if it was an accurate representation of the likelihood of functional DNA forming). 1/10^10 stops being so unlikely if there are 10^9 tries, you see.
