Also, there is no indications yet that they evolved together. It's entirely possible that one (likely RNA) evolved before the other.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Well, information is useless unless it is organized into a form in which it can be made useful.
Fortunately life does not depend on everything being useful so even if that was true or relevant it has nothing to do with life or "Simultaneous Evolution". Life depends on something not being so bad that it kills the critter before it can reproduce.
So the question is this: why, or how, could information (DNA) and an interpreter (RNA) conveniently arise at the same time so that they can be useful to one another?
As pointed out before, there is no reason to think that is what happened.
(1) - Neither DNA or RNA by themselves would have any "survival value" whatsoever.
Doesn't matter. As long as they did not hinder reproduction all is fine.
(2) - You still have the complication of getting the DNA to be organized in a useful way in the first place.
Not at all. Again, that is the beauty of evolution. There can be lots and lots of stuff that is not useful. When something though just happens to get arranged by chance in a useful way, it gets kept.
(3) - You also have to have a cytoplasm in which the RNA can use the information to synthesize proteins.
No, we have that now but that does not mean that we always did or that it was needed.
(4) - ...I'd be glad for some other people to think of more difficulties that would be brought about by this example.
So far I haven't really seen a problem. Did you have one in mind?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!