I was about to point the same thing out, but I will just refer to his response:
Way ahead of you.
This particular concerns the question you asked about how life transition to using DNA as the carrier of heredity. Paradox 5 is asking which emerged first, DNA or the enzymes that replicate DNA (which is answered by the RNA world that can make proteins before DNA exists). Paradox 6 asks, when DNA-based life emerged, how did it survive without error correction. Paradox 7 asks if we assume that DNA based life emerged in the absence of error correction, then where are all the DNA-based life without error correction?
I gave answers to all of these, but the important thing to note here is that, while they are related, these are different from the question of how life transitioned from the RNA to DNA world. Paradox 5 is about whether life transitioned to the use of protein or DNA first (it’s protein), not about how the DNA transition itself happened. And Paradox 6 and 7 explicitly assumes the transition to DNA life as a given.
I know it wasn’t your intentions to convey your remarks as the title of the paper, but when I went looking at your citations in the description, I can’t see the difference between what are the titles of the papers and what is your personal opinion about them. That’s why you shouldn’t add your personal remarks among the links to your references (leave that for the video).
The world before the Darwinian Threshold that Woese describes in that paper, when HGT was the dominant force driving early evolution, was prior to LUCA according to the correction by @Rumraket directed at me. Of course, HGT did happen after LUCA, but to a much lesser extent.
More importantly, your obfuscating from the point. You dismissed the paper by claiming it is all “conjecture and speculation” and that the paper itself uses the word “conjecture” in the abstract. But I showed that the paper itself says that it is supported by data in the abstract, which you conveniently ignored. And I also point out that the paper goes into full detail laying out the evidence for its propositions. You just continue to dismiss it out of hand without any argument. Appeal to the stone - Wikipedia As I said before…that’s not productive. You have to actually address the content of the papers, or the discussion will go nowhere if you continue like this.
I don’t understand what you mean “metaphorically”. In any case, yes, I don’t agree with the significance you add to the label “domain”. These labels of domains, phyla, classes, etc are just labels we put on groups of organisms arbitrarily, and it doesn’t matter which label we apply, it’s possible for the group to go extinct no matter how impressive the taxonomic label that we have put on them. Trilobites are an entire class of arthropods that went extinct, there were several phyla that went extinct. Extinction, even for arbitrarily large groups, is not a paradox.
As pointed out before, you also agree that there were plenty of impressive groups that went extinct. The aforementioned trilobites, the dinosaurs that have ruled the big part of the Mesozoic, of which birds are the only ones remaining. And many other extinct groups that were impressive in their own right, with their unique evolutionary innovations. All of these could not find the path to stay around. Evolution, nor convergent evolution, doesn’t guarantee any group of organisms to avoid extinction. If you think that, according to evolutionary theory, any group should be able to evolve in such a way that none of them will ever go extinct, you don’t understand evolutionary to say the least.
No.