Question

Which factor is not a line of evidence supporting the RNA world hypothesis?

Answer 1

- structure of the ribosome
- lack of introns in bacterial genes
- catalytic RNAs
- discovery of self-replicating RNA systems

thinking B maybe but not entirely sure

Answer 2

Sorry if I'm late but here's the break down of each option:
RNA world hypothesis basically shows original life forms were simply RNA molecules.

-structure of the ribosome: This is known as the best example/evidence for the RNA world hypothesis because a) ribosomes are present in ALL cells, whether prokaryotic or eukaryotic and are considered evolutionary relics and b) because ribosomes consist of rRNA, this further goes in line with the RNA world hypothesis.
-catalytic RNAs: this example is basically talking about ribozymes, an enzyme that joins the amino acids from translation to for polypeptide chains. It agrees with the RNA world hypothesis because in pre-existent life, it suggests that organisms were still able to carry out simple metabolic functions.
-Self-replicating RNA systems: this is definitely a contribution to the RNA world hypothesis because it demonstrates that RNA is a sustainable nucleic acid and has evolutionary traces.

This only leaves option B out because 1. it is irrelevant and in a way sounds more against the RNA world hypothesis than for it. I agree with your answer