Let's recap this thread. In order to demonstrate the "impossibility" of abiogenesis, a false "conundrum" was proposed that showed that DNA depended on complex proteins for catalysis, and that therefore we should jump to the conclusion that these must have both existed from the beginning. In short, the idea was to convince us that in order for life to have come from non-life by natural means, both complex chemicals must have assembled by chance simultaneously and in close proximity to on another.
The error in jumping to this conclusion was pointed out: that DNA may have evolved after the first living things, which may have relied on self-transcription. Until it is demonstrated that this is not a possibility (a feat that shows no sign of being accomplished soon), then we have conveniently ignored this possibility in order to jump more expediently to our conclusion.
Having been given this answer, instead of acknowledging the mistake, we are now siezing on
one hypothetical model of the sort that corresponds to the possibility that life evolved before DNA and to expose the appearance of weakness in it. So what are the weaknesses?
We are not clear on that. Apparently, among other things, the RNA world hypothesis
requires that:
A pool of exclusively right-handed ribose molecules could be produced, separated from a jumble of other sugars, and remain stable long enough; the bases could be produced in large quantities; and a high concentration of phosphate (PO43-) would be in solution rather than precipitated out.
But no indication of why AiG thinks this is required is given. Why, for instance, does the pool have to be comprised of right-handed ribose molecules, and not both right- and left- handed ribose molecules? Why must they be separated from other sugar molecules in the pool?
etc... etc...
Doubtlessly, there is some reason why this is suggested - but if we are to continue checking AiG's shoddy work (and obviously it requires checking - it was they who suggested that DNA/protein interdependancy should cause us to jump incorrectly to the first conclusion in this thread) - they must explain themselves so that we can properly evaluate whether these problems are critical and insurmountable or whether these problems are solvable... I suppose they want us to assume they are critical and insurmountable so that we will reject the RNA world hypothesis, ignore the fact that we have not eliminated all other possibilities for abiogenesis before DNA, and therefore jump, once again, incorrectly, to the original conclusion. Unfortunately it is not so easy.
They try to convince us with a quote 15 years out of date, and perhaps out of context. I won't be convinced with that. Obviously (based on the more recent quote from the same scientist that Notto posted) the objections from 15 years ago were
not critical and insurmountable. If Joyce was not convinced that they were when he wrote those words, why should we be convinced of that now?
You really need to wait for the "scientifically minded" to sign on and find the thread. Just because you don't get an answer in a forum doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist. 
