The origin of DNA itself is a central problem that evolutionists have not resolved. It is a necessary condition for evolution to be true. How did DNA begin? To believe in evolution you would need to answer this question. So far, no one has answered it. Not the most intelligent scientists, with the most extensive education, with the most advanced equipment and technologies.
Mutations change characteristics that are already in the DNA. But how did DNA ever get started? If it doesn’t have a beginning it can never change. This is a problem that is largely ignored by evolutionists. There are many studies and books comparing the DNA of different species or talking about how viruses also have DNA but there is no explanation of the origin of DNA, the beginning of DNA. There are vague theories and hypotheses but no one can agree because they don’t make any sense and every one of them is unproven and disputed even among the scientists who think it must have happened. Evolutionists are convinced it must have happened, but cannot explain how it happened. This is a critical point. Research it yourself. Try to see what evolutionists say about it. Does it make any sense? Do you think they know? Evolutionists really don’t know. One thing is for certain:
If there is no origin of DNA, then evolution logically cannot be possible.
The “genes first” theory originally thought that DNA was the first molecule and was the ‘building blocks’ of the first life. DNA makes molecules that do metabolism but metabolism is needed to make DNA. Because they could not explain how both DNA and metabolism appeared at the same time to work in a coordinated way, they then thought RNA (which is a simpler form of DNA) was the first building block molecule because some RNA can also do very basic metabolism. However, RNA cannot do the complex work required for self replication and there is still no explanation on how you could get enough RNA, if any, to start with. So this theory is not generally accepted because many evolutionists who understand biology at the highest level cannot explain how this could possibly have happened. This problem of what is called ‘the RNA world’ has been stated as “requires an environment that is impossibly improbable” by evolutionists who say this could never happen, so instead they are trying to figure out how the metabolism first theory might work. These evolutionists have completely rejected this “genes first” theory, and instead explain the “metabolism first” theory.
The “metabolism first” theory of the origin of life believes that there were metabolic networks that developed deep in the ocean at ocean vents on the sea floor that are very hot. This heat is thought maybe could be the energy to start life. These hydrothermal vents also have some enclosed areas and it is thought they could allow for enough molecules to come together to begin these metabolic pathways. So the thinking is that there are these small areas around thermal vents on the ocean floor with heat for energy and maybe this is where life began. That gets around the problem of the vastness of the ocean with no way to get enough of anything together to get life started.
However the problem with this is that these ‘metabolic pathways’ must develop ‘complex feedback loops’ to have any usefulness and there is no explanation of how this possibly could have happened. The genes first evolutionists say it never could have happened. Both sides know that even the metabolism first theory needs to have RNA and no one can explain how you can start with one (either metabolism or genes) when both are needed.
So the evolutionists who are working on the metabolism first theory believe there is no way that the genes first theory could be true, and the evolutionists who are working on the genes first theory believe there is no way that the metabolism first theory could be true. The problem is even bigger than it seems. It is not that each group thinks the other group could be right, and that they just prefer their position. No, both groups are sure the other group cannot be right. Both groups base their certainty that the other group is wrong on the same biologic principles in which they are both world experts, and both groups are all evolutionists! Even worse for them is that both groups, despite their differences are equally dependent on an origin of DNA.
Evolution cannot be true if evolution cannot result in the origin of DNA. It is a necessary condition.
You do not need to be a molecular geneticist to decode the message:
If there is no origin of DNA, then evolution logically cannot be possible.
FURTHER STUDY
So what does the scientific literature say about the origin of DNA?
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States published the article “Evolution of functional nucleic acids in the presence of nonheritable backbone heterogeneity” to examine the origin of DNA. Here we read “The generation of pools of highly pure ribonucleotides on the early Earth seems unlikely” and “Perhaps the greatest problem implicit in this assumption is the challenge of explaining the origin of pure nucleotide monomers on the early Earth”. In this article they “discuss and begin to test the idea that life may have started in a less well-defined manner, from mixtures of chemically diverse monomer building blocks”. This is the consistent result in the evolutionary literature as confirmed by the article “Characterization of RNA-Like Oligomers from Lipid-Assisted Nonenzymatic Synthesis: Implications for Origin of Informational Molecules on Early Earth” published in the Switzerland journal Life. They confirm “the presence of imidazole-activated nucleotides in high concentrations on prebiotic Earth is debatable” and they hope future research “could enable us to delineate schemes that might have led to the origin of informational polymers”. There are no answers to these most basic questions of the basis of life. There are only ongoing and endless uncertainties, problems, and challenges.
It is a published fact in peer reviewed scientific journals that the origin of DNA is unknown.