Don't call me a liar. These are your words.
Your majory error here is the belief that DNA is encoded information. It is not. It is one, big, long, complex biochemical problem.
Your follow-on evidence was severely flawed, such that it shows you have little or no knowledge of how DNA works, among other things.
Your blatant ignorance is no evidence of anything more than your blatance ignorance. And despite your attempts at refutation, DNA has coded information.
I said you are either a liar or had a reading comprehension problem. I did not call you a liar. I was being charitable
You claimed that I "denied that DNA had information." That is clearly false. Your post 279 states my post to the effect that "Your majory error here is the belief that DNA is encoded information. It is not. It is one, big, long, complex biochemical problem." The next paragraph showing the context and later posts made perfectly clear that I am specifically stating that DNA is not coded information in same way that language is coded information.
There is a clear distinction between your statement that I denied DNA had information, and my statement that it was not coded information specifically coded information in the manner in which language is coded information. So you are clearly wrong, as I never claimed that DNA had no information.
When you pointed out the error I made, I accepted it. Now, you are clearly in the wrong, as you have said I made a claim I clearly have not made. If you persist in that claim from this point forward, I will have to conclude that you don't have a reading comprehension problem, but are, in fact, a liar.