Again, using non-rigorous pedestrian definitions of information ("data") are not useful. You are suggesting things that are false by definition if you use the terms in a rigorous or scientific context.
"Again, using non-rigorous pedestrian definitions of information ("data") are not useful. You are suggesting things that are false by definition if you use the terms in a rigorous or scientific context."
False by definition?! What nonsense are you trying to sell here?
Data is that information/knowledge which can be meaningfully processed, stored, and predictably replicated.
DNA does that every time a life form procreates. Various DNA for different life forms can all have the same physical structure (i.e., Double Helix), but still contain the knowledge/data necessary for entirely different animals.
So in DNA we have something very special: the same physical structure (double helix), comprised of the same chemicals (forming four codons A, C, G, and T), yet stores the data for entirely different life forms.
Sure, a double helix is a double helix is a double helix, yet one double helix can store the data for a fox while the other stores data for an ox.
What other structure in nature retains its same form while containing data?
So while you make the wild-eyed, unscientific claim that there is nothing special about DNA, clearly you can show no examples of anything else in nature that stores predictable, repeatable data.