Percy, please don't take this wrong, but until you can make the distinction between matter containing it's own "personal" information, and matter that contains coded information using is a system of symbols used by a encoding/decoding mechanism that transmits a message independent of itself, I'm afraid we will not be talking about the same thing.
Again, you're trying to draw a distinction that doesn't exist, and you're insisting on a restricted definition of code that was crafted for the specific context of communications in a digital age. The information that there's a large mass nearby in the form of star is communicated in the form of electromagnetic radiation and gravity that takes about eight minutes to arrive. Clearly information is being communicated from the star to us, else we couldn't know it was there. Until you have an inclusive definition of information and codes, your ideas won't be representative of the real world.
I think I see a point of fundamental confusion. I'm not sure but maybe I do.
WBL suggests that only a "code" that transmits a message that is purely "abstract", that is, is symbolic and not a part of the physical nature of the medium of which the code is built is what he is talking about.
Thus a message in English writing can be in the form of a book, words produced by an LCD screen, or dots and dashes of Morse code and still have the same "symbolic meaning". The message (information) is independent of the carrier. I think that is a requirement he has but I'm not sure.
Of course, if the above is true, then DNA is not a code meeting this definition. It can not be conveyed in any other way and still "work". It is pure chemistry and the "sender" and "receiver" are chemical reactions which have to have it in it's chemical form.