BD -- okay, i just wish you would state it like that, because i simply dont think "information" is the right word. At the bottom of it all, we both believe that life (eg. very simple cells), are a larger number of molecules that behave in a quite predictable way. So we are back at square one, how did life begin.
I can perhaps make it more clearer. Lets assume that the mainstream view in geology is correct and the early earth contained a number of amino acids -- so far no information(?)-- We know these free amino acids can spontaneously form small(ish) strands of RNA. Well, isnt that information? it sure would be what we called it if it were in a cell!
I think the problem about using "information" here is that it take a bit of a magical sence.. it sort of erect an interlectual boundary which i dont have any reason to believe exist. Either chemistry can account for the formation of life as in eg. the RNA world, or it cant; it dont have to account of any "information" because information mainly occur in cells because of the way we interpret how they look.
Lets say i want to convince you that snowflakes cant form natually. So i say: "Snowflakes are beautiful". You will agree easily. So i can now say: "I dont see how we can go from no-beauty (water) to beauty (snowflake)". I might be right - but the question is all about the properties of water at zero temperature, its not about "beauty" which is entirely subjective! Beauty is not explicitly "created" at any point in the process.