Not enough room in DNA

Life is chemistry. In chemistry you can get something this complex: From a molecule as simple as this: Perhaps the author of OP should think about this for a second.

In the same way that life is physics. The tertiary form that proteins adopt is due to the physical interactions between the amino acids in the peptide in a given environment. Whether or not a protein binds to a given section of DNA is determined by it's amino acid sequence and the environment (e.g. the lac operon in E. coli).

Which of these is more impressive:1. Someone racks all 15 pool balls, breaks them, and pockets every single ball on the break.2. Someone racks all 15 pool balls, grabs each one individually, and then drops them into the pockets.A natural universe with a Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. is scenario number 1. Magical poofing is number 2. Is it misleading for my wife to tell me that she grew some flowers in the garden when it turns out that flowers grow naturally from seeds?

First you need to evidence this claim, then we will address it. As it stands now this is nothing more than a poorly informed opinion.

In the same way, you can not tell time with a diagram of a clock. The order of bases in DNA is just a shadow of the real thing. The information in DNA is expressed in chemistry and physics, not in abstract forms like writing in a book. You seem to be confusing actual DNA with the abstract way that humans describe DNA.For example, let's say that I have a really tiny paper printer that can print letters the size of a molecule. I use this printer to make a long list of A's, T's, C's, and G's on a tiny piece of paper and insert it into a cell. Will that cell treat it like DNA? No way. We use letters on a page as an analogy for DNA, and abstract representation. You are carrying this analogy way too far.

I would think that someone had cheated. Are you saying that God is a cheater? So you are saying that God could NOT use natural laws?

M. genitalium is the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution. Of course it isn't simple. What you need to show is that it is impossible for any replicator to have fewer proteins, otherwise your argument is irrelevant. You haven't even shown that amino acids are necessary for life to begin with. RNA can serve as both an inheritable molecule and as an enzyme filling the role of DNA and proteins in modern organisms. How did you determine that they were haphazard patterns? Would you say the same of a Jackson Pollock painting?