Absolutely.

This is actually a fact set that's been used to create a lot of confusion. Life needs the elements in order to exist, so it only makes sense that they should be provided in the environment.

Some have put a spin on these observations and maintained that the elements arrange themselves and become alive. If the elements had such a property, it should've been observed by now; instead, a universal tendency of decay is observed - just the opposite.

The subject of information is important in more than one way when discussing origins.

Nobody has discovered an unguided process which produces language, syntax, context, or alphabets. Information on these levels, whenever the source is known, comes from intelligence; so the only sound conclusion one can scientifically draw is that the rule is absolute. Things that are observed to be universally true are assumed by systematic science to be universally true, even in cases where they are not observed. It is assumed the interior of the moon is subject to gravity, although we haven't been inside the moon to find out.

There are those who maintain that somehow, some way, (although they cannot describe or even imagine a way around it), we need to believe exactly the opposite. Well, that's unscientific. It's blind faith. They have an enormous burden of proof, and no means of meeting it.

A commonly told story about "Shannon information", (a favourite of antitheists because, when spun, it leads to a nonsensical conclusion) actually acknowledges the unnaturalness of information. When receiving a sequence of letters, the more surprising a letter is, the more information it is said to contain. For example, if you receive 'c', then 'a', you aren't surprised if 'b' or 'r' or 'p' follow. You are surprised if 'a' follows, or 'z'.

Now the whole premise of the story is that information is equated with surprise value. Nature isn't supposed to produce surprises. Just the opposite. When chemicals are combined in a lab, they are always expected to produce the same results. All people rely on this principle, scientists perhaps a little more heavily than others.

But everyone relies heavily upon it. How would we walk if gravity surprised us with random fluctuations all the time? We couldn't operate or even build machines if the laws of nature were surprising us with continual revisions.

Surprise is antithetical to nature. Yet we're asked to believe that nature produced more information than anyone knows how to describe. A strand of DNA contains many "surprises", and even the simplest, most whittled-down, lowered-bar version of a cell proposed by evolutionist "scientists" has to have a good amount of DNA, and has to have it organized and functional.

This is but one issue. I don't know of a way to put everything about information into a compact "nutshell" summary. Obviously nature is not capable of producing high-grade information, but this mostly applies to abiogenesis. There's also the issue of informational entropy which leads to extinction rather than improvement. And one could explore the feasibility of language origin conjectures, and even conjectures about the origin of communication in any form.

But without figuring out what information is, it's fairly difficult to discuss any of these things. Hence the attempts to nip such discussions in the bud by misdefining the term(s). My first post was primarily intended to establish a firm idea of what information is in the mind of the reader. From thence, it is easy and natural to commence investigating.

Thanks. It's fascinating stuff, in a lot of ways. One of the beautiful things here is that one already knows a lot more than one realizes about information. We learn a set of fundamental rules when we learn to talk, and although we don't go around reciting these rules we all still remember and recognize them.