I explained that DNA doesn't contain information like a language does. There are some definitions of information so broad that literally everything that exists has information by virtue of existing.
If genes worked like languages do, we would only need the sequence to determine what protein/s are produced by the gene. This is not the case, especially with eukaryotic genes because the mRNA produced is not representative of the gene transcribed.
But I can go through each of those points easily:
1. Nucleotides are not symbols, they are chemicals. We may symbolically represent them as G, T, A, and C because of the names we gave them, but they are not symbols in and of themselves.
2. I've already described that DNA has many properties no language actually would. In fact, the only ones I could think people would be able to argue it had is that genes have clear "start" and "stop" points, but this is a consequence of the fact that there are certain sequences that are necessary for the protein complex that transcribes DNA to attach to and 3 codons that, no matter what, will cause that protein complex to fall away from the DNA. but I would still say that it's not like a language. even in that. aspect. because. these periods are not stopping you from continuing to read and you. aren't prevented from starting. by virtue of me not capitalizing the first letters.
3. Trust me, when trying to isolate genes and insert them into bacterial genomes, they are not cooperative. Alternative splicing is a huge pain in the butt. Heck, sequences that worked well for one person can end up being a nightmare for another, just by chance.
4. DNA cannot be demonstrated to have any intent.
Yeah, so, none of the 4 components this Gitt guy thinks defines information applies to DNA.