DNA, Where did the code come from?

You should read about natural selection.

Deliberately transmitted, eh?
Couldn't leave well enough alone, eh?

I tellya, layman. Everybody would be a whole lot better off if they would run their crazy ideas past you'n me before just dumpin' them sperms irresponsibly, ya know?

The Panspermia hypothesis suggests that the seeds of life are common in the universe and can be spread between worlds. This idea originated with the Greek philosopher Anaxagoras, and was later promoted by the Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius and the British astronomer Fred Hoyle.

Even though Darwin himself focused on the origin of species [comment: species, not life itself], some scientists have tried to apply the concept of evolution [comment: nothing mentioned in this article has anything to do with "evolution" insofar as I can tell] to the first life to form the concept of abiogenesis.

In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey tested Oparin’s hypothesis by conducting an experiment that attempted to simulate the atmospheric conditions of primitive earth....Unfortunately Miller’s attempt to demonstrate the possibility of abiogenesis (that life can come from non-life) did not honestly simulate conditions on the primordial earth...But let us suppose that Miller’s experiment faithfully recreated conditions on the early earth, would the experiment be validated?

A further major difficulty is that such experiments cannot produce the right kinds of amino acids.... It would still remain inexplicable how the L-form amino acids became correctly ordered with the proper links (peptide bonds) to form proteins. The odds would still be stacked highly against obtaining even a single protein from a primordial soup made up of exclusively L-form amino acids.

But let us suppose that not only was a naturalistic mechanism discovered which could segregate the left-handed forms needed for life, but also a soup was discovered which possessed a mystical capacity to form proteins. To form a living cell requires hundreds of specialized proteins that need to be precisely coordinated. We would also need to produce DNA, RNA, a cell membrane, and a host of other chemical compounds -- not to mention arranging them into their correct locations to perform their respective functions....

Abiogenesis – Conclusion
Clearly to get from the Miller-Urey experiment to a living cell by unguided materialistic processes requires that improbabilities be stacked upon improbabilities. For this reason, Dean Kenyon rightly concludes: “It is an enormous problem, how you could get together in one tiny, sub-microscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the hundreds of different molecular components you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle to be established.”

Yawn

How does "randomness" come in other than as a statement of belief, Farmer?

My question was, are you sure that DNA was a prerequisite to the living state?
How are you sure?

How does "randomness" come in other than as a statement of belief, Farmer?
Im not sure of what you speak, since you made up the statement, why not explain it to us?

My question was, are you sure that DNA was a prerequisite to the living state?

The myth that we have no hypotheses, and no explanations for the origin of life on earth persists. In fact, biologists are considering and testing a long list of possibilities that would explain the shift from non-living to living materials. Here’s a few summarized from Wikipedia...

[It goes on to summarize all kinda diverse "theories." A sample: "Bubbles collecting on the beach could have played a role in forming early, proto-cell membranes."]

Even if none of these hypotheses turn out to be corroborated by empirical investigation, the important point is that there are a number of live hypotheses being considered.

Or failing that, the metaphysics of MUFON.

**** Happens I tell ya.

Chemical bonds and chemical affinities are not random.