Vidqun:
You as the living organism would be receiving the benefit of protein assembly. In the end you would be the receiver
You are equivocating very strongly on the meaning of "receiving" in that sentence.
The basic problem here is that we can easily agree that DNA carriers information by any reasonable definition of the term, however it does so without any conscious entity being involved at any stage of the process --- it is all just chemistry. Why a conscious being has to be inserted into that process is not clear.
Let's consider the first time namely where Gitt claims:
b) Every choice of code must be well thought out beforehand in the conceptual stage.
the question is of course why. There is no evidence at all the DNA code or the replicating machinery has not changed over time (and, considering the various differences that exists, change is very likely it did on external evidence alone). We therefore have to say:
Every code must be thought of beforehand to consist of a convention X but can subsequently change to another Y
But now the "beforehand" claim is very difficult to support. After all, if code can change, how can we define what constitute a "code" (or not) meaningfully? Does spontaneous replicating RNA with slightly different replicating success depending on the sequence qualify as a "code"?
Gitt, insofar as I know, cannot make it clear what distinguishes a code from a non-code in a clear sense. Rather, he focuses on either obviously artificial codes (like text in a newspaper) or highly evolved codes (like DNA), but that can't be the issue because nobody thinks DNA just arose spontaneously.
