A Few Questions For Creationists

Well, for having 'studied' evolution for 25 years you seem awfully ignorant. Origin of life theories depend on chemistry, not on evolution. Do you know why origin of life theories (or abiogenesis) does not draw heavily on evolution?

There are five nucleotides used by DNA and RNA. In DNA they are adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. RNA replaces thymine with uracil.Further, all nucleotides consist of a phosphate and a ribose (RNA) or deoxyribose (DNA). They do not get any simpler, nor complex when used as part of the genetic code. However, they can be incorporated into other compounds (such as ATP, adenisine-triphosphate), but those aren't part of the 'building blocks of life'.I honestly don't see what natural selection has to do with the construction of these five bases. I can clearly see what chemistry has to do.Natural selection kicks in when you have DNA (or RNA) in replicating organisms. That's because natural selection, as you're well aware, requires mutations. Mutations are simply the changes in the genetic code from one generation to the next. No genetic code, no expression of the genetic code, no evolution.

Ah, I get it. You're not actually talking about nucleotides, are you? See, you said diversification and increased complexity of nucleotides, not peptide chains. Please be more accurate, or else I'm going to have to disemble another false argument.My point still stands--chemistry, not evolution, is responsible for the creation of nucleotides.Now then, mentions of NS:
the first is under a discredited OoL, Eigen's hypothesis. Further, NS only enters the picture after hypercycles becamse "quasispecies", which means that, according to this hypothesis, evolution kicks in after all the pieces for life are put together.the second is when wiki discusses the possible role of bubbles. This seems to be a very vague, incomplete hypothesis (especially the way wiki handles it). NS kicks in when you have a stronger bubble. Reproduction depends on the bubble eventually breaking.The third deals with autocatalysts, as described by Dawkin's in one of his books. Wiki calls it a "rudimentary form of natural selection". It essentially works by having a community of molecules that can self-replicate and be hereditary and compete with each other.Evolution:
the first mention is in the set-up. Oparin, in 1924, realizes that atmospheric oxygen would prevent the creation of the molecules that are the building blocks of life. This is in the very first abiogenesis theory, and evolution kicks in, guess what, after you have a mechanism for metabolism and fission of the cell.the second mention is a little confusing. It's in a wiki section not dealing with the actual hypotheses, but "Early Conditions" at the bottom. It has do with how fast life evolves at the beginning, due to how long it takes water to recirculate.the third mention is "Step 3: The evolution from molecules to cell", and this hardly strikes me as a reference to biological evolution, but evolution used as change, progression.the fourth is Bernal's suggestion that "evolution started between steps 1 and 2"The fifth is in Miller-Urey's experiment. Granted, that's 'chemical evolution', not 'biological evolution'.Eigen's hypothesis takes number six. Of course, just as with it's mention of NS, evolution is kicked off after quasi-species have formed.The sixth (and seventh) mention is Wchtershuser's hypothesis, or the iron-sulfer hypothesis. This talks about "the evolution of (bio)chemical pathways as fundamentals of the evolution of life". His hypothesis has biological evolution take over after the formation of "auto-catalytic sets of self-replicating and metabolically active entities." Note that we are dealing with, as with Miller-Urey, the chemical evolution, not the biological evolution, of very basic life. Once it exists, then biological evolution kicks in.The eigth mention deals with homochirality, but it is chemical evolution, not biological evolution.The ninth mention is part of the comparison between genes-first or metabolism-first models, stating "whereas others postulate the evolution of biochemical reactions and pathways first". Note that this is not biological evolution.The tenth mention comes in the "Clay theory", but it is about a scientist disagreeing with other models of chemical evolutionNumber eleven and twelve is discussing panspermia--this time life came from Mars, which is why Earth had life so soon, with so little time for pre-biotic evolution. Eleven is not biological, twelve is, but it is after life is established, as wiki used "continued evolution [on mars]".The last, number thirteen, is mentioned in the lipid world hypothesis. It states that first you have cell bodies, and then evolution gives you information storing molecules (DNA or RNA). There is no mechanism, however, to support this hypothesis. I would say it's fair to call that biological evolution, though just barely.Evolution is not used 16 times throughout all the hypotheses (wiki article on abiogenesis), and most mentions of evolution are in fact chemical (or bio-chemical) evolution, not biological evolution. Well that is patently false. The ToE is predicated on the ability of complex cellular arrangements to evolve and be selected for or against. It happens today. We have plenty of evidence for it.
Unless, of course, like when you mentioned nucleotides and not peptide chains (or even better, DNA/RNA), you mean to say something different.Now then, why can't life be smaller than 150,000 bases? The smallest (in base number) organism we now of today has the baggage of 3 billion plus years of evolution. Um, all of chemistry relies on physics.

You do realize that hypothesis, and the book, are over 80 years old, right? In a field of science that is extremely young, right? That perhaps Oparin, much like Darwin in the Origin of Species, didn't know some things (Darwin had no clue how traits were passed on, a huge part of his theory).How about quoting something from some more recent research.