This problem is believed to have been solved in terms of evolution, that is by "tagging" (methylating) uracil. Methylated uracil is identical to thymine. Hence the hypothesis that, over time, thymine became standard in DNA instead of uracil. So cells continue to use uracil in RNA, and not in DNA, because RNA is shorter-lived than DNA, and any potential uracil-related errors do not lead to lasting damage. Apparently, either there was no evolutionary pressure to replace uracil in RNA with the more complex thymine, or uracil has some chemical property that is useful in RNA, which thymine lacks. Uracil-containing DNA still exists, for example in: DNA of several phages Endopterygote development Hypermutations during the synthesis of vertebrate antibodies.
This problem is believed to have been solved in terms of evolution, that is by "tagging" (methylating) uracil. Methylated uracil is identical to thymine. Hence the hypothesis that, over time, thymine became standard in DNA instead of uracil. So cells continue to use uracil in RNA, and not in DNA, because RNA is shorter-lived than DNA, and any potential uracil-related errors do not lead to lasting damage. Apparently, either there was no evolutionary pressure to replace uracil in RNA with the more complex thymine, or uracil has some chemical property that is useful in RNA, which thymine lacks. Uracil-containing DNA still exists, for example in: DNA of several phages Endopterygote development Hypermutations during the synthesis of vertebrat:e antibodies.