@Hadriel
I think it is time to move on from the point scoring banter on this thread and get back to your original OP. I think you and I both know I am not about to post anything on this forum that comes anywhere close to proving how life got started. There are interesting hypotheses centred around the RNA world (which you have discounted, but I'll come back to that) and I would like to consider the following two papers.
Back in 2009 nature published a 'Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions'. This describes the potential for pyrimidine ribonucleotides to form sequences whilst bypassing difficult free ribose and the nucleobases.
I am not an expert in chemistry, however this shows a summary of the chemistry from the paper. This is the paper or here. Maybe you have an OpenAthens account to access this or Nature account? The second link seems open.
Obviously this paper led to lots of new research into the area... and if you jump to 2011 you can read through this paper (which thankfully is open). Here given the blood sweat and tears of previous research the paper can build from the proposed mechanics to discussing what would constitute life and where the boundary should be drawn.
Without wanting to appeal to authority too much, it seems to me that the grounding of these papers is well researched especially when they have considered the plausibility of the starting conditions and pathways that would not require unrealistic jumps in complexity.
Your OP demands potential for amino acids to DNA. Clearly we are not there in the above papers, but would agree that the papers cannot just be discarded as junk science?
Also your OP states "RNA as a precursor is not plausible due to complexity so how did the proteins needed for life get created." I would like for you to explain this statement to me a little more. Are you suggesting the RNA is more complex than DNA? If you discard RNA as 'plausible' due to complexity, why would you then go on to ask for methods that jump straight to DNA? I really do not understand your statement, please elaborate and perhaps I could get my head around what you mean.