Who are those “others” you are talking about? Last time I checked, these people (whom you are basically calling lousy scientists) are all publishing their research in peer-reviewed academic journals of fundamental biochemical research… I think you are very much at odds here with “mainstream” science.
It’s good that you asked because that was not at all my claim. My claim was that evolutionary theorizing led to the RNA world hypothesis as an explanation for the origin of the current complexes associated with DNA. This turned out to be a very fruitful research direction:
There was a time when the origin of DNA and associated mechanisms were completely mysterious. Thanks to the RNA world hypothesis, that boundary has shifted to self-replicating RNA, which is a much simpler molecule in structure and function. Now, such progress implies that we’re dealing with the right theory here. There has been much progress in the past years in this field and it would certainly not be a stretch to predict that we are going to disentangle the origin of RNA too, in the future.
Again, studying the origins of life is a difficult task with many uncertainties. But that does not give you a basis to dismiss the commonly used theoretical framework (i.e., evolutionary theory in the broadest sense) as “failing”.