They need to prove that increasing number of mutations is even a desirable property.
Faster evolution is a desirable property, maybe not anymore, but in first life for sure.
Maintaining an exact copy of RNA/DNA through generations and generations is a real challenge, right? Loosening up the copying mechanisms to allow for more mistakes would probably be quite easy to achieve, if that was beneficial, right?
I’d be interested to hear what makes the idea wrong.
I assume that making perfect replicas is the default way for a given type of life to dominate. Making “random copies” (an oxymoron) is not likely to result in domination of any individual type (of building block, single cell, or multi-cellular life). Making perfect copies allows a build-up of “winners”.
If that implies a very strong selection process for perfect copies, then after that a selection process for increased (but still small in aggregate) mutation rate would seem globally helpful.
The answer is that there was an old fish with 5 whatever in it's fins, and the offspring conquered the land and evolved and now we have 5 fingers. If a 4 whatever fish tries to do the same trick, it will face a strong competition an if the offspring ever reach the technological level to create a small country, we would nuke them from orbit.