>Although this is way out of my field, it always seemed to me that any
> sequence
>which contians information is only useful (and therefore actually contains
>information) if there is a way of either translating it or extracting it.
> Thismay be obvious for encrypted messages, i.e. they may look just like
>random letters. Consider what that does to the DNA code. With out a
>mechanism to translate it into protein formation, it is useless. Does this
>mean we have a chicken and egg situation for the "first" cell? Which came
>first, the DNA message to make the translating proteins, or the translating
>proteins? :-?
Most modern thought is seems to be saying that RNA came first. It has
properties which seem to give it the ability to self-catalyse.
glenn