DNA Communicates?

[In situ]

I was kind of hoping to get to the HOW first.

YEC does not care if their exists a deeper explanation or not in what they say and claim. As long as it sound good to say and the explanation to explain why it is wrong is to long and complicated to be easy understand, or can be further misunderstood, then they will keep claiming the very same thing over and over again.

My favorite example is when the YEC ilk Jonathan Sarfati in an interview in an Aussie TV show claimed that Dawkins uses "bait and switch technique" when he goes from "micro" to "macro" evolution - again the claim is based on redefining what science actually means with things. It is very easy to make claims like Sarfati does but it takes a lot of time to explain why they are wrong (or as I suspect Sarfati does here - just lying to himself, i.e. using deceite and self-deception, simply because he does not what the opposite to be true).

The acceptance of these kind of claim is always based on either ignorance or conceptional confusion or both.

The funny thing is that people think they are able to judge and understand, and in particular be critical, on scientific theories without having any deeper education on the subject in question...it is like knowledge and education does not count at all...

 

[In situ]

If I were to make a claim l ... I'd at least do a google search to make sure I was right.

Then you do not understand the reasoning of theists. If an answer feels good then it must be right. If an answer does not feel good then it cannot be right. Evidence, or understanding, is of secondary importance - if even relevant at all... But it goes wrong when they try to rationalize what they believe, but not even that some theist can admit (canonical here is William Lane Craig).

 

[In situ]

Why does it communicate?

It is a communicate in the same way a key communicates with a lock. It is an exchange of structural configurations, this can be treated, or thought of, as an transfer of "information". Why does it do this? Well, because of the laws of physics and chemistry allows these chemical and physical interactions to happen. If the laws didn't scientist would have had to introduce new forces to explain it. But they didn't.

After biologists, chemists and physicists carefully have investigated the issue they have concluded there is no need to introduce any new forces beyond known physics and chemistry to explain how and "why" cells do things.

This "communication" is no more remarkable, and the very same phenomena, as planetary orbits can be treated as computations but then again, we normally does not talk about planetary orbits solving computation problems, do we?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ignorance has never prevented anyone from saying anything...

It is equal true to say:
"KEYS communicates detailed instructional information which LOCKS detects carries out for the opening of doors."

But what do we learn from saying 'a key communicates with a look and tells the lock to open the door'? Nothing. This is the very same reason why the concept of information is of very limited use when it comes to DNA/RNA.

It never stop amaze me how people can keep talking about nothing wile they at the very same time actually think they are talking about something. This is why science work and other methods not: you actually have to prove that you know what you are talking about - that it works - not just make claims.

Quite right. For ID/creationists, it is really just about semantics. When scientists use terms they are careful to define what that term means with relation to actual models and experimental results. For example, Dr. Tom Schneider defines information in DNA as,:

"Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC102656/

Information is defined as binding affinity, the rate at which the protein and DNA sequence attach to each other. I have yet to see any creationists define information in such a straightforward manner. Instead, they use nebulous and vague terms so that they can continually move the goalposts. All they want to be able to do is make the claim that evolution can't increase information. Just semantics.