I earlier gave you example of Alphabits cereal. If you arrange three letters to spell "yes", that is information. But if you jostle the box and three letters fall out to spell "yes", that is also information.
Yes, it mimics real intended coded information.
And that is the same thing that DNA does. You've just been tricked into thinking the mimicing is real.
In fact, any arrangement of letters is information. That some arrangements happen to correspond to words to which we attach meaning (which as Shannon tells us is independent of information) is irrelevant to the information itself. Speaking digitally, information is just bits, it doesn't matter what meaning people might attach to the arrangement of bits.
Until you can make the distinction between information and coded information systems you will never understand what is being argued here Percy. Yes anything that happens gives off "information" just by it's very state. It tells us something about itself, or possibly something about what it may have encounted. But there is no code intended to be sent and decoded. No intended information.
All the examples you continue to offer are only information about themselves or other things they have come in contact with in some fashion. There is no decoder that this information is intended for. This information means nothing until we assign meaning to it.
The same thing goes for DNA.
In DNA, there is real coded information, a real signal which is intended to be successfully decoded and implemented.
Whoa... wait. Nuh-uh... you just made that up. Do you have any support for this assertion?
And, who is the intended decoder for DNA?
That example is assigning meaning to the code post hoc, or in hind sight. It is assuming the conclusion in the premise. The whole argument is the logical fallacy Begging the Question.
FAIL!