Another repetition of the fallacy of assuming the conclusion.
Nonsense -- it's stating a fact. A simple chemical cycle like this is far less complex than the amount of complexity that evolution has been directly observed to be able to produce.
None of the things that exist have been shown how they got there or even how they could have gotten there.
Wow, you really *are* ignorant of the countless research findings in evolution, aren't you? Evolution has been directly observed creating functional complexity countless times. That's a far higher number than the "none" you claim.
They are there and you merely assert evolution because you can't admit of any other possibility.
Stop lying about my reasons for my conclusions, please.
But the lack of other possibilities in your mind is not evidence of your conclusion. That is the fallacy of the false dilemma.
It would be if that were the reason for my conclusion, but it isn't. I strongly advise you to stop posting your insulting, false presumptions about me as if they were facts.