But DNA (information) is completely useless, that is unless it has RNA (the language interpreter).
This part of your argument is plausible. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but let's assume you're right that DNA cannot function without RNA.
But RNA serves no function unless there is DNA (information) to be interpreted.
This part or your argument, however, is clearly inaccurate.
RNA and DNA both do pretty much exactly the same thing. RNA stores information just like DNA does, and it stores that exact same information. Dividing the two "roles" of the molecules into "information storage" and "information interpretation" is just playing with words, like Mr Jack said.
RNA does not really require the presence of DNA to function. RNA can store information in the same way that DNA does. In fact, there is a common type of virus that uses RNA to store information: the retrovirus.
The "RNA World Hypothesis" is the idea that RNA was doing its thing long before DNA came on the scene. And, RNA seems fully capable of living up to the hype. With such a hypothesis as this, Abiogenesis proponents have essentially discredited this entire issue of simultaneous evolution/irreducible complexity that you raise here.
Typically, mRNA gets information for amino acid sequencing (this is slightly generalized) from the DNA, and then tRNA and rRNA may act as catalyzers [sic] for the process of protein synthesis.
Since marking your own mistakes with “sic” is rather inexplicable, and since I can’t find the word “catalyzer” anywhere else on this thread, I'm curious as to whether this is actually your own writing.
...but please notice something about all of this: besides from some difficulties with the actual steps, one must realize that the steps are mere possibilities (if that), and really only serve as an escape device for evolutionists.
When other valid possibilities are brought onto the table, your assertion that RNA and DNA must have evolved simultaneously loses its automatically-assumed-as-true status, and becomes nothing more than one of the mere possibilities itself.
When autocatalytic ribozymes are known to exist, it’s difficult to take seriously your argument that RNA can’t function without DNA.
Dr. Adequate mentioned that "a lot of the most basic nuts and bolts of the process of making proteins consist of RNA enzymes such as tRNA and rRNA". This is indeed true, but it does not support the notion that RNA, in and of itself, can carry out all of the necessary functions for life, including reproduction.
You’re missing the basic point. What “necessary functions of life” did RNA have to carry out on its own other than self-replication?
A “ribo-organism” would have been nothing more than an autocatalytic ribozyme, a molecule that replicates in a pool of water. Such an “organism” did not have to do anything but self-replicate. It could become intermingled with DNA and proteins later.