You appear to be describing abiogenesis. I cannot find that addressed in the Theory of Evolution, and have no compulsion to attempt revisionism to include it.
Abiogenesis is not "in" the Theory of Evolution. Though we do know that Darwin speculated about a "warm little pond" scenario for the origin of life in a private communication to a friend. However, Darwin never included this speculation in any of his books. I figure that means he had low confidence in it.
Basically, my gripe is not with Darwin, but with his successors and "promoters," in particular Haeckel....
Anyhoot, abiogenesis theory is basically a non-starter. It presumes, as Hubert Yockey points out, that the origin of life "is just complicated chemistry and that the pathway to the origin of life, if it could be found, is emergent from organic chemistry." [Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, 2005]
Yockey is a mathematician with high confidence in Claude Shannon's information theory respecting biological systems. He believes that Francis Crick is right that there is a "Central Dogma" that defines how information is transferred between DNA, mRNA, and proteins.
Francis Crick (1958) published The Central Dogma, stating his view of how DNA, mRNA and protein interact. The Central Dogma states that information can be transferred from DNA to DNA, DNA to mRNA and mRNA to protein. Three transfers that the Central Dogma states never occur are protein to protein, protein to DNA, protein to mRNA....Abiogenesis experiments start out with amino acids, in hopes of "boot strapping" them into proteins. If the Central Dogma is correct — and Yockey believes it is, see below — then even if the experiment is successful in obtaining proteins, we still have zero information about how mRNA and DNA evolve — from proteins — in the abiogenetic scenario.
[Crick] emphasized, correctly, that there is no flow of matter, but, rather, "...sequence information from one polymer molecule to another"....Anyhoot, it wasn't Darwin who got the ball moving on abiogenesis as an explanation for the origin of life. It was later scientists such as Miller and Urey, who as chemists were evidently impressed with the ToE. Their experiments seem to be consistent with the Darwinian view of "accident," of randomness and natural selection. Above all, to some extent at least, it seems clear to me that the motivation of such pursuits, as was likely the case with Darwin, is to explain biology without reference to a creator, to show that "Nature did it!!!" by means of spontaneous chemical reactions that are basically directionless.
The genetic code has a Central Dogma because it is redundant. As a result, except for Trytophan and Methionine, it is undecidable which source code letter was actually sent from mRNA. The Central Dogma, stated correctly, is a mathematical property of any computing or information processing system that uses a redundant code. It is not a fundamental property of the chemistry of nucleic acids and amino acids.... Two alphabets are isomorphic, if and only if, they have the same Shannon entropy.... The Shannon entropy of the DNA alphabet and the mRNA alphabet is log2 64.... The Shannon entropy of the proteome alphabet is log2 20; thus, like all codes between sequences that are not isomorphic, the genetic code has a Central Dogma. No code exists that allows information to be transferred from protein sequences to mRNA. Therefore, it is impossible for the origin of life to be "proteins first"....
The restrictions of the Central Dogma on the origin of life are mathematical.... Scientists cannot get around them by clever chemistry. Likewise, Nature's proscription against the building of perpetual motion machines is also mathematical. The Second Law of Thermodynamics places a severe limit on the ability of a clever engineer to build machines that derive work from heat. Regardless of the choice of materials or design it is impossible to build a perpetual motion machine. These restrictions apply however socially, politically, and environmentally desirable it may be to make perpetual motion machines.
Once the mathematicians and the physicists take their place at the biological table (so to speak), new insights are gained.
Just some thoughts, dear tacticalogic. Thank you so much for writing!