"All pieces of information must have a sender ."
"Oh dear . We once again see the fallacious 'information ' argument being used . The craters on the moon give us information about past impacts , do we demand that information has a 'sender ' ? Spectroscopy gives us information about the constitution of stars , do we demand that information has a 'sender ' ? And indeed even if we use the argument that all 'information ' has a sender and recipient , genetic material has ... neither . It 's just chemicals and forces . Nothing more . There is no identifiable 'sender ' , and there is no identifiable 'recipient ' . Sure , you can chuck a god in here or there if you like , but that 's not where the evidence leads . DNA is not a code , DNA is certainly not a 'language ' , and it only falls under the definition of 'information ' that pretty much everything we decide to look at does ."
"All pieces of information must have a sender"
"Oh dear once again fallacious 'information ' argument do we demand that information has a ? sender recipient There is no identifiable 'sender ' chuck a god in here or there"