From all we know at this time, it did not need a sophisticated DNA
repair system. If you think that it did, you need to demonstrate that.
The problem with god-of-the-gaps denial stupidity is that you don't
know what is in the gap either.
> Are you stupid? Nah. Are you crazy? Likely. Are you delusional? Definitely.
Projection is stupid and as dishonest as anything that you ever do. You
have to know what you are in order to project that onto someone else.
Why can't you understand that?
> Below I gave you the reasons. And instead of responding to the cited paper, you ask what my point is.
There was nothing to respond to in the cited paper. They demonstrated
that million year old bacteria survived because they had the DNA repair
system that had evolved over billions of years. They were billions of
years in time from the first life forms that used DNA.
>>> "Until recently, this lack of conservation of the key elements of the DNA replication machinery precluded reconstruction of the ancestral state, suggesting multiple origins for DNA replication and even the possibility that LUCA was an RNA-based cell [2, 5]. However, given the universal conservation of other components of the replication apparatus, such as PCNA (sliding clamp), clamp loader ATPase, and ssDNA-binding protein, along with the inferred relatively high complexity of LUCA, comparable to that of modern prokaryotes, such scenarios appear unlikely. The line of reasoning developed here, based primarily on the recently discovered evolutionary connection between PolD and the universally conserved RNAP, allows inference of the ancestral DNAP.
So what is your point?
>> What is your point? More denial? If RNA came first there could have
>> been multiple evolutions of DNA replication. What do you not get? What
>> is also likely to have happened is that early life forms were exchanging
>> genetic material (universal genetic code), so they can keep variable
>> polymerases and acquire other bits by horizontal transfer. It is one of
>> the reasons why we have difficulty trying to figure out the last common
>> ancestor of the three distinct types of life (bacteria, archaea, and
>> Eukaryotes. Even after such a last common ancestor life forms have been
>> swapping bits of their DNA. We have a bunch of eubacterial DNA in our
>> genomes because of the symbiosis event that made eukaryotes aerobic
>> lifeforms. Even though eukaryotes seem to be derived from achaea,
>> archaea doesn't have as much aerobic bacterial DNA in their genomes.
> So now you're going for RNA being first life.
> By coincidence, this article just appeared today:
Why keep going back to the ID perps for second rate junk when you are
running from the Top Six? That is what you should explain, not put up
more claptrap denial from the ID perps.
What does translation termination have to do with the price of tea in
China, in relation to DNA repair? This is just more god-of-the-gaps
denial stupidity. Why even bring it up? More denial doesn't explain
your other denial, nor support your denial. It is just more denial.
> "In Science, Michael R. Lawson and six colleagues play the role of forensic investigators, figuring out what goes wrong when mRNA transcripts run a red light, so to speak. Their paper, “Mechanisms that ensure speed and fidelity in eukaryotic translation termination,” begins with a statement of the law: “How Translation Stops.” It includes a shocking statistic:"
> Continue reading down. I'll quote one part:
> "This “essential process,” they note, requires the functioning of interdependent events. The “e” in eRF1 and eRF3 means “eukaryotic” because bacteria, too, have homologous factors (RF1/2, RF3) that perform corresponding functions. Translation termination is therefore essential for all living things."
> Now tell me why this first life based on RNA would not require repair mechanisms, and/or what "simple" mechanisms would look like, as opposed to 'sophisticated" or "relatively complex" machinery comparable to what appears has been required of DNA and RNA since LUCA and even first life.
What is your point? What does this have to do with your DNA repair
denial? What does it have to do with your DNA replication denial that
you put up after the DNA repair denial?
Why don't you have any ID science to put up and discuss?
God-of-the-gaps denial has never amounted to anything in centuries. The
gaps just keep getting smaller. Why do you think that Behe never
claimed that DNA replication or repair was his type of IC? Shouldn't
that give you a clue as to how much this type of denial is worth?