"I don't think that this address the original point which claimed that abiogenesis was unlikely because the chance of generating the first protein was very slim. Frameshift in the already created genetic code to introduce a new protein is not really relevant to here."
On the contrary, it is very relevant. Joseph's argument went beyond abiogenesis to claim that evolution was anti-science because the chance of evolving a functional protein by randomly assembling amino acids was too low for any (true) scientist to have confidence in it (remember his 0.95 confidence level?). If that argument were true, then the chance that a frameshift mutation (which creates a new and essentially random sequence of amino acids) could create a unique protein with a novel function must also be so low as to be impossible. Yet I described at least one case where it happened, and there are undoubtedly others. So if highly improbable frameshift mutations can nonetheless create unique proteins with novel functions, then so too could abiogenesis create unique proteins with novel functions by the highly improbable method of random amino acid assembly.
Kevin L. O'Brien