What will be the consensus about RNA world hypothesis in 2040?
Proven to be possible, but alternatives are not falsified
No consensus

The RNA world is currently the most favored hypothesis for abiogenesis: the process with which life has arisen from the non-living matter. This theory explains the chicken-and-egg problem of the complexity in the living cells by positing much simpler earlier stage of life development, that primarily relied on RNA.

For the outcomes "proven" and "falsified", at least 90% of relevant experts should consider the theory respectively proven or falsified. For the outcome "Proven to be possible, but ...", at least 90% of relevant experts should consider that RNA has been demonstrated to be possible, but less that 90% should consider the alternatives disproven.

In the (likely) absence of polls among scientists, the question will be resolved based on the contents of the RNA world Wikipedia article. E.g. if the article characterizes it as a proven scientific theory, "Proven" wins. If Wikipedia is compromised and/or loses its credibility by 2040, I will try to find other criteria following the same spirit.

I do not bet on my own questions.

Get Ṁ600 play money
Sort by:

What counts as "RNA World"? Just that RNA came before DNA? That's very likely, but in and of itself is not an explanation of abiogenesis.

@adele Whatever is commonly understood as “RNA World” hypothesis/theory in 2040. It could happen that this theory will be considered proven, but there would still be some remaining gaps in the explanation of abiogenesis.

More related questions