Uh.... that's YOUR job? You and Watson are the ones making the argument that your odd-ball version of information theory somehow correctly models the behavior of complex chemical interactions, and therefore predcts the probabilities of the formation of certain compounds (which, according to you, contain something called "Data"). To make this argument, you also need to make and support the claim that Data in fact IS stored in chemicals.
After all, if the chemicals at issue (self-replicating peptide strings, the precursors to RNA and thus DNA) do NOT contain Data, then your monkey-model is irrelevant.
DNA is a chemical compound structured in a double-helix shape. DNA looks the same regardless of what life form we find it in.
What separates the DNA of an amoeba from the DNA of a Man, then?
The answer, of course, is that there is different DATA stored in those two DNA samples.
And DATA isn't just stored in DNA. DATA is also stored in the chemicals (via magnetism usually) that comprise your hard drive.