You have neither.
But you haven't taken the initial step of formulating a hypothesis that makes empirical predictions.
No, I wouldn't agree to that.
Nothing regarding the origin of life qualifies as a theory. We have hypotheses, you don't/
That's not how one states scientific hypotheses.
How does it incorporate the fact that peptidyl transferase is a ribozyme?
You won't even offer a hypothesis that makes empirical predictions. That's the criterion. Otherwise it's just pseudoscience.
No, that is an objectively false statement. The proportion of the genome with no known function is constantly declining, but it still represents the vast, vast majority of the genome.
If you'd like to reply, I suggest that you do so quantitatively.
That's not how science works. You're supposed to be trying to falsify your own hypotheses, not issuing challenges to others in the scientific community.
No, that's not a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory. Your "prediction" is entirely subjective, not at all empirical. Scientific predictions need to be purely empirical to counteract the human tendency to ignore evidence and rationalize. Why are you unwilling to make an empirical prediction?