dont know. But we do seem to have inndications that earliest life was NOT associated with DNA or even RNA. So, we really dont know how the ribonucleic acids were inserted. We do know (from a great statistical evaluation of aqueous mineralogy and oxy hydroxides in early the neoArchean period) that mineral species also "evolved " from earliest oxide and sulfitic states to branch, chain, and more complex mineralogy.
Siderite and Marcasite and Hematites were seen to be following a helical and multihelical state as they grew crystals.
I would really like to know how the initial information was programmed so that life could replicate beyond its earliest forms(remember all complex life, if viewed on a clockface would be less than the last 3 minutes of the clock face.
pre biotic and biotic chemicals really arent that different, so when ammonias led to amines and were availablein abundance, the story of life had a full toolkit.
Is it possible that the"RNA world" hypothesis kicked in only after cyanobacter (or cyano archeobacters ) instituted magnesian /calcian transfer of oxygen that the RNA actually developed .(Sugars and water (requiring ample O2) could have stimulated many kinds of nucleic acids (simple to complex).
I dont know and neither do you.
HOWEVER, in my mind, theres really NO means where DNA (in the Ediacara and post Ediacaran " complex life eras" ) that requires any kind of "Planning or bar coding instruction" to ccomplish any of the gen addition, duplication, or gene abandonment techniques other than changes in environment or mere mistake. Im more inclined to see the evidence that supports such genomic events because in present dqy living forms, we see many genic adaptations and mutations as a result of environmental changes. (Arctic Stickelbacks have modified heolysis genes from the same pile of genes that control blood clotting, and these genes have modified to become a sort of haem "antifreeze" with the only cost a significant drop in haemoglobin so that the stickleback blood is actually clear--This arose when populations of arctic stickelbacks were "trapped" in the high arctic and evolved. The High arctic expanded after onset of the Illinoian/Mindell (I think the date is right). Connecticut River Cichlids (crappie bass) have been trapped behind colonial era dams and have evolved new structures and lifestyles that have been seen in ther genomes.
Today we hve some of the same events occuring in reverse, with Ursus maritimus apparently re-evolving to favor and "turn-on" the pseudogenes that were turned off in the dim past.
All these above were environmental responses.
NOW, when I said "I dont know"the only damn thing I hve no real explanation for is the cellular ribosomes (We know that mitochondria (from work by Margulis and Woese) were free living evolving to parasitic forms to take on structures like falciperal "cysts" .
Im willing to listen on how the ribosome evolved because it , to me, is the closest analogy to a biological "let there be light" tool.
I am fairly convinced from all the evidence that COLLECTIVELY explains "non coded " evolution because we can see the environmental relationships for evolution in living forms and no real COLLECTIVE evidence for an ID world