I’m going to ask you now this once to never again so confidently put your willful ignorance on such an embarassing display. For your own sake. I genuinly don’t understand what goes on in your skull when you write something like this, considering how there are many threads and posts on this forum alone where this evidence has been explained in detail. Some of the evidence for the RNA world hypothesis explained in this very thread is also evidence for the the genetic code and translation system being the product of evolution.
For example the evidence that the core functions of the ribosome are performed by RNA (that peptidyl transferase consisting of RNA was predicted on the basis of the RNA world hypothesis). There’s a thread on this forum that shows that a key prediction of the hypothesis that the ribosomal core, due to it’s A and P-site symmetry, was once it’s very own ribozyme that could self-assemble into a dimer, and catalyze peptide bond formation, has been experimentally confirmed. This core molecule, a dimer of a single RNA, has siginficant structural and sequence similarity to … tRNA. Why would it have that if these two different, and functionally distinct components of the translation system (the peptidyl transferase center and tRNA) did not derive from the same ancetral RNA molecule? This is another piece of evidence that there was an RNA world, and that the translation system evolved in it.
The two families of enzymes that charge tRNA with amino acids, the Class I and Class II aminoacyl-tRNA-synthetases, were predicted by Rodin and Ohno, in 1995, on the basis of significant sequence similarity in the middle-base codon (@Nesslig20 should have made it clear to you why middle base codon is significant) in the genes encoding these enzymes, to have originally evolved from the opposite strands of a single ancestral gene. A subsequent analysis of the phylogenetic trees of both class I and class II enzymes shows that this sequence similarity increases as we go further back in time, when inferring ancestral nodes in each tree. If this hypothesis was correct, it should be possible to reconstruct these ancestral forms in the laboratory, show that they can be encoded by sense-antisense strands of the same gene, and that they are indeed functional. This has been experimentally confirmed. This is as good evidence as it is possible to get that a key component of the translation system (and therefore the genetic code) is the product of evolution. The enzyme most directly responsible for creating the chemical bonding association between RNA and amino acid, the charged tRNA molecule, today consisting of 64 distinct enzymes, was once encoded by one single gene, with the two opposite strands encoding the first common ancestor of each class. These ancestral forms are highly promiscuous enzymes, but each ancestor has a substantial preference for the amino acids charged by the members of each extant class.
Both the RNA and protein components of the ribosome testify to the gradual evolutionary history of the ribosomal exit-tunnels capacity to assist in protein folding. The proteins most close to the ribosomal core are unstructured, basically just disordered strings of amino acids that “stick” to their surrounding rRNA. As we go further out from the ribosomal core, the proteins gain more structure. Literally the ribosome’s own structure is informing us of it’s gradual evolutionary history, with molecules deeper in it’s core being from a time when it was basically just stringing together random peptides unable to fold autonomously, but as the exit tunnel grew larger, it also aided the folding of the evolving proteins it synthesized, so that these in turn could also assist in it’s function.
These data points are much better explained by the hypothesis that the genetic code and translation system evolved in the RNA world, than on whatever non-existing hypothesis of supernatural instantaneous creation you might want to come up with at some point. You don’t really have a hypothesis of course, it’s just some ad-hoc rationalization that whatever we see was once supernaturally created in an instant, with zero capacity to predict any particular data.
There’s more but this should be enough already to utterly and completely debunk your assertion. You are the one engaging in wishful speculations, and worse, outright ignoring evidence.