I believe that that the ID definition of information is reasonable/applicable here. As you know, the complexity of DNA is not just getting the linear sequencing correct, but that there is a 3-dimensional component, as well as a 4th dimension of time that is involved in DNA with gene regulatory networks, which help with the timing of expression of certain genes at the appropriate times... again, all things that naturalistic causes cannot accomplish.
I can tell from both your and
@KomatiiteBIF 's responses that neither of you have a real good argument backed by scientific observation in favor of naturalistic evolution and the apparent lack of creative power ascribed to naturalistic processes (nor have either of you given a synthesis for theistic evolution that overcomes the challenges faced by purely naturalistic processes, if that is a view either of you have). The reason I know this is because you don't actually respond to the
work being done by ID, creation, and other scientists who reject evolution, but instead aim your responses on my ability to explain/synthesize their work (like as if it's my job to do that for you... are either/both of you without access to internet search engines such that you cannot find/learn this stuff on your own but instead require me to explain it to you?), or you attempt to minimize their work as if it is some obscure "startup" that will soon die off.
How odd that after all the years of education, all the work, after having scaled the "mountains of ignorance" that you would resort to this method of trying to uphold evolution... if it weren't true that the position in favor for evolution is an indefensible one and the ground upon which you stand is eroding beneath you. Why do you think the Royal Society called a meeting on the issues surrounding evolution back in 2016 and why at that meeting many alternatives were discussed, but none of the naturalistic alternatives were able to satisfactorily account for the issue of needing new information in order to allow for evolution? It's not because a few creationists in Kentucky and a handful of ID folks in Washington find issue - there are obviously major, widely recognized issues with the conventional view of evolution. This is true.
Do you not see the same pattern with rabbits, dogs, cats, bears, apes, etc...? I do. I can see they are all animals, that they have variations within each of their created kinds, but that there is not just a visual pattern but also a behavioral pattern within each group. Why humans stand alone is not just an interpretation of scripture, but is observable. The research by Todd Wood (most notably in my mind), but others as well, shows that there are also consistent physical distinctions between humans and apes.
Like usual for you, when you're not employing ad hominem attacks, you will often invoke ad absurdum techniques like making it seem like I just "refuse" to see the same similarity between humans/chimps like with rabbits even though there are obvious and very clear distinctions beyond a simplistic "body plan equals linked by evolution" view.
Why is there this pattern where all varieties of rabbits act like... rabbits, all apes/chimps/monkeys/orangutans/... all act the same... then there are humans, who both look and behave very differently--though we all have heads with two eyes, two arms, two legs, two hands, etc.... What would be really ideal for evolution is if we found an ape walking around more upright and properly like a human, maybe building crude tools and furniture, creating fire pits and basic ways to cook/prepare food, developing a simplistic character- or image-based form of written communication... basically doing things to simulate what are distinctly human behaviors, but on a lower level where we might say, "well they're definitely quite a few notches above the typical ape... but definitely still quite a few notches below human... something that helped bridge the gap where we could say, "yeah we're probably all related and connected by evolution". Unfortunately the fossil record forbids such a find and no life forms alive today indicate such a link or fill such a gap.
Where would you like to turn to from here, do we just chalk it up to the missing artifact hypothesis? Can't say scientists aren't looking hard enough now that it's been over 150 years since Darwin's
Origin of Species. Conveniently inconvenient for evolution, this is the bane for every life form in existence or once existed. With the exception of a few [often-cited] "alleged" transitional forms, the pattern (as is recognized by pretty much every paleontologist - whether proponent of evolution or not) is the lack of transitions in the fossil record. The fossil record is made up of complex life forms at the lowest levels found and is complex throughout, and there are just abrupt appearances and abrupt disappearances. You can balk all you want about the usage of the term "abrupt" but is going to fall on deaf ears as "abrupt" is not my description, but those used by creation scientists, ID scientists, paleontologists of every stripe, etc... It's not called "abrupt" to be in contrast with what you perceive to be a long period of time from your worldview of slow geological processes; it is called "abrupt" because of the apparent lack of transitional forms leading up to it's first appearance in the record - you just need to deal with it.