For evolution to be true there would have to be a sequence of events that first creates life from nonlife, then DNA would have to be created somehow, and then even more difficult is to have a self replicating cycle so life can continue. A self replicating cycle means that a life form must have the ability to have another life. No matter what happens to make life or what life form may develop, there would be no continuing of life unless that life can replicate itself somehow.
If there is no origin of a self replicating cycle, then evolution logically cannot be possible.
So let’s just assume that in some mysterious way that life came into existence from nonlife. For this to even matter the new life would then need to be able to replicate itself. Even more astoundingly impossible is that this self replicating cycle would have to ‘evolve’ in the life span of the very first life form, or there would be no second life form. If all of this cannot ‘evolve’ from nothing to something, and then before the very first life dies, it is also able to develop the ability to maintain life by developing a self replicating cycle, then there still is no life.
We know that the instructions for life are contained in DNA. So, there must be an origin of DNA within the life span of the very first life or there will not be more life. How do evolutionists explain this problem? They don’t. DNA is the height of complexity of all life forms. Yet it must have been in the very first and simplest of all life forms and must have ‘evolved’ in the life span of this first life of the simplest of life. The absolute most complex structure of DNA must have developed within the life span of the first life. Does this seem unreasonable? It is. Trying to explain a self replicating cycle without DNA is equally impossible.
Another layer of complexity is that even if there was the origin of DNA within the life span of the very first life, the replicating cycle that allows life to continue would require that this very first DNA in the very first life also have the ability to copy and separate the DNA! This is because DNA contains the information of life. For life to replicate, the DNA must be copied and then the original DNA put in one life and the copy DNA put in another life, then both the old life and the new life will have the same instructions of life.
This process is getting ridiculously complicated. To have life continue you first must have life develop from nonlife. Then second, in this first life there must be the origin of DNA which contains the instructions of life. Third this first life must be able to copy the DNA to pass it on to the next life. Fourth, this first life (that that came from nonlife, and then made DNA, and then was also was able to copy the DNA) must then be able to separate the original and copied DNA. Finally, the fifth step is that the cell must divide in a perfect way so that after the split there are now two lives; one with the original DNA and the other with the copied DNA. It is illogical to believe all of this occurs in the life span of the very first life! So how do evolutionists explain this?
The question of “possible scenarios on the origin of life” was discussed in the journal Bioessays in the article “How did bacterial ancestors reproduce?” The answer, like with every one of these 50 controversies is that evolutionists do not know! The results of this research “may provide insights into primitive reproductive mechanisms and contribute to a better understanding of the origin and evolution of mechanisms of cell reproduction”. It is simply unexplained at this time.
Evolution cannot be true if there is no origin of the self replicating cycle. It is a published fact in peer reviewed scientific journals that the necessary condition of the origin of a self replicating cycle is unknown.
What is self evident without replication is:
If there is no origin of a self replicating cycle, then evolution logically cannot be possible.