Every objection I have heard about RNA world, including your link, relies heavily on the chemical nature of discrete-cell reproduction. All I can suggest is that nobody really tries very hard to understand the nature of the notion being presented. If RNA world existed, it almost certainly did not have discrete cell reproduction, and almost certainly was not into high fidelity reproduction (How could it, without DNA?) And so it's chemical requirements were radically different than those of cellular entities. The arguments you have linked to are, to be kind, irrelevant. DNA world was constructed radically differently from ours. So the failure of the chemical world to provide things we cellulars find copesthetic is not a devastating argument against it.
What the version of RNA-world thesis I like best holds is that DNA packaged in single cells was just one of many things RNA world tried out, much as DNA world "tries out" various combinations of meat machines as DNA carriers.
In light of this, it is no more surprising that RNA-world managed to select DNA-carrying cellulars, than that guppy breeders can create lyre-tail guppies.
There's quit a bit in both links about how short half-lives for sugars would make it very unlikely they were available as prebiotic reagents.
All I can suggest is that nobody really tries very hard to understand the nature of the notion being presented.
When you say nobody do you mean the authors of those links or science in general?
In light of this, it is no more surprising that RNA-world managed to select DNA-carrying cellulars, than that guppy breeders can create lyre-tail guppies.
Here's where I keep referring to "fallen science." Guppy breeders have created lyre-tail guppies. Why would DNA come about if RNA was doing it's job?