from my understanding, the DNA strand cannot accumulate enough genetic material to become viable before deleterious mutations renders the strand unviable.
I think these probabilities are misapplied. As has been discussed on the forum before, during the abiogenesis process there would have been selection going on. So while the initial sequences were in essence random, any 'interesting' sequence could have an increased propagation rate.
natural selection just isn't the muscleman evolutionists claim it is.
this isn't the only problem.
what would be considered as "first life"?
prokaryotes or eukaryotes?
glansdorf says this:
Life was born complex and the LUCA displayed that heritage. It had the "body "of a mesophilic eukaryote well before maturing by endosymbiosis into an organism adapted to an atmosphere rich in oxygen. Abundant indications suggest reductive evolution of this complex and heterogeneous entity towards the "prokaryotic" Domains Archaea and Bacteria. The word "prokaryote" should be abandoned because epistemologically unsound.