The first mistake he seems to make is that he claims DNA is random, and then he looks at exons which are not random due to being under selective pressures.
The second mistake he makes is assuming that random DNA would have equal representation of all bases. This is like saying that if dice are random that we should get as many 7's as 11's in the game of craps. Obviously, this isn't true. Random mutations can and do have biases for different types of substitutions, not to mention that chemical and physical mutations will also favor some mutations over others.
In other words, there is no expectation that random DNA in a genome will have an equal distribution of bases, even if that stretch of DNA has been undergoing neutral drift for billions of years.
I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh . . . It is one of those moments where you can't tell if they are serious or if it is a parody, and you can't stop laughing. Check this out.
"Observing this image of the dynamics of Fibonacci's DNA supracode resonances, Jean-claude Perez had the immediate intuition of showing this pattern in a different media: MUSIC... More in Full CD audio of "THE FIRST MUSIC OF GENES"" http://creationwiki.org/Jean-claude_Perez
He actually sells a CD of music that is based on "the dynamics of Fibonacci's DNA supracode resonances". Try to read that without laughing out loud.
You have to tip your beret to the French. Their creationists have a flair that American creationists can only dream of having.