That's the opposite of what I am saying. I am saying that there is no "must" when it comes to supernaturally-created biology. It has no constraints. There is no reason to expect biology to operate a certain way given only that it is supernaturally created. That might sound like a strength but in science a catch-all explaination is useless.
Self-replication and imperfect replication are perfectly consistent with a supernaturally-created biology. No requirement for no or perfect reproduction there.
Anything is consistent with a supernaturally-created biology. So no suprise that our particular biology is consistent with it. Support for an explaination occurs when an observation is compatible with it yet needn't have been.
Evolution's purported 'events' occurring thousands, millions or billions of years ago likewise cannot be tested.
Evolution puts forward specific mechanisms which have constraints. It is not compatible with any observations. For example under evolution no modern mammal fossils should be found in cambrian rock formations. That makes it testable.
Evolution didn't predict that life would be based on a complex, specified code independent of the message carrier. That's creation's realm. Evolution long 'predicted' that life was simple, until it was found to be complex. Then evolution was merely re-interpreted to allow complex life.
And whether there is a 'must' in a supernaturally-created biology would depend on what supernatural creation you accept. The only one that meets your requirement for no 'must' is one that must consistenly operate through supernatural effects. That is your error.
Evidence is interpreted to be consistent w/ evolution. Geological formations are dated by the youngest fossils w/ older fossil inclusion being the assumed result of 'fossil reworking'.
It's the only way that evolution can be saved.