For the sake of argument, let us assume there was a source of cytosine to help feed the need of RNA replicators. In RNA, cytosine is paired with guanine. However, cytosine is inherently unstable, and can change into uracil (spontaneous deamination). The practical problem that appears is, if we use the trial and error model to form evolving genes, all genes that rely on any cytosine will be changing, with time, to uracil. The uracil will then base pair with adenine, changing the gene during the next cycle. Would this logical drift, superimposed upon the assumption of random changes, make it possible to form the basic cell machinery needed to get the replicator over the hump?
The magic trick behind statistical math.
One thing that is not taught in science, is statistical modeling uses data assumption that cannot be proven, independently. The data assumptions of statistics are based on the circular logic of the math itself, with these assumption not independently provable in the lab apart from the circular logic. For example, the odds of me winning the lottery are say 1 in 10,000,000. After the lottery is over and I win, my odds were actually 1 in 1 based on hard data, apart from the circular logic, since i have the winning ticket. If i did not win, my odds were actually zero, as proven with after the fact data. The method gives all the data the same irrational attributes, sort of a magic power that you assume is there, but which can't be quantified apart from the assumptions of the method. We can't collect these odds of winning in a beaker, pour it on anyone, so they win. It is an imaginary placeholder. If it was real one could collect it.
Since it uses imagination, the circular logic method of statistics can be used prove God, as long as you are not required to verify the data assumptions of the circular logic independent of the method, like science does with statistics. Christianity claims God is all loving and is everywhere in all things. The proof of this will be proven by the statistical changes that lead to progress and positive outcomes. We can see these all around us appearing here and there. If we have a risk of cancer by eating grapes, and you get well or never get cancer, God snatched good away from the jaws of risk. The math will show this. Science, uses a dual standard in terms of data assumptions and will expect us to prove God in the data, apart from the circular logic.
What I would suggest to religious people is to take advantage of statistical to prove God in the data, with the circular logic and math of statistics that gets to avoid proving the data assumptions. Traditions in Christianity, have always had Satan as the antagonists of God, with the Satan connected to bad and evil things that happen. We will equate Satan to risk factors and chaos. God by being good, also permeates the data. God is like a white smoke, and is fighting to the dispel the gray mist of risk that also permeates the data. As long as the math has predictive power it is valid.
For example, we can do a risk analysis, such as the risk of being struck by lightning in the storm. Risk is everywhere trying to do bad. It can pull lightning bolts in any direction it needs. We all have it like a disease due to the devil in the storm. After the storm ends and the risk goes away, the output products of risk do not appear in most of the sample population in the data field. Almost nobody gets any injury. This is due to God intervening against the antagonist called risk. The high level of safe people proving God with the same data used by risk analysis. The math will always work, even with the circular logic of the God aspect, that opposes the risks. If the risk of getting hurt are 1 in 1000 the odds of God helping are 999 in 1000. This is the preponderance of the data and therefore needs to be considered the main variable since more data is better than less data.
The age of reason appeared, centuries ago, to get rid of these magic data trick approaches of circular logic based math, so one religion does not gain enough power to set up the dual standard to promote its own superstitions with circular logic. Logical and rational methods are the cure for the chaos religion in science. Magic science makes it harder to do real science since its religious angle (uncalibrated mind) is repressive to reason and enlightenment.