You friend has NEVER gotten "good DNA" from a chaotic environment. In fact, no one has been able to perform that feat. That's also what the math in this thread shows (that it's impossible to get good DNA sequenced in a chaotic environment).
So your poor friend is maintaining a position that he/she can't support with either evidence (e.g., good DNA self-forming in a chaotic environment) or with math (as this thread demonstrates).
Sadly, many such Darwinian diehards fall into that same state of denial. They can't produce the evidence to support their claims (ala "good DNA" above), and they can't refute the math in this thread, yet they still cling to their outdated beliefs...
Yes he has. DNA wants to combine in more and more complex, life creating forms, just as water wants to go downhill.
So your poor friend is maintaining a position that he/she can't support with either evidence (e.g., good DNA self-forming in a chaotic environment) or with math (as this thread demonstrates).
I told you in the beginning I was going with valid argument from authority. I'm sure I can ask him for a point-for-point rebuttal, but I doubt he has the time to properly tear apart this paper. I'm not sure he could do it through the tears of laughter.
You just had a math Ph.D. working in the field of bioengineering indirectly tell you the math is "balony" (spelling; he's not American). Get me another of equivalent authority to challenge please. Do I have to call up some acquaintances at EMBL (European Molecular Biology Laboratory) too? I don't know their individual beliefs, and I'm sure most are religious, but I'm pretty sure what the answers will be.