On the contrary, nice try yourself. Your sources merely describe presumed processes in the emergence of life. They do not define, or even propose a test to find, the mechanism behind those processes.
Why did you evolve my words from a "b*itch for science" to "a bitch for evolution?" Or do you have games of your own to play?
Why do you waste everyone's time here when you understand neither science nor evolution?
Yes, exactly. You asked for a "hypothesis". I pointed you to several.
If you need help understanding what a scientific hypothesis is, I'll be glad to help.
They do not define, or even propose a test to find, the mechanism behind those processes.
Which processes do you believe they didn't "define the mechanism behind"? The "mechanism" is basically ordinary organic and inorganic chemistry. If you want to learn more about that there are plenty of good textbooks, but surely you didn't expect the authors of the papers to "define the mechanism" of every chemical process they mention.
As for the less well-known processes, that's what the references are for. For example, here's a passage from the second paper:
Individual nickel and tungsten atoms, in conjunction with proteins containing Fe4S4 (and in one case Fe3S4) centres, variously comprise enzymes that catalyse electron transfer reactions at extremely low redox potentials (Cammack 1988, 1996; Adams 1992; Volbeda et al. 1995). The redox switch would have operated by gain and loss of electrons as Ni(II) or W(VI) converted to Ni(I) or W(IV) and back, the Fe4S4 centres providing the electron pathway to the electron sink (Volbeda et al. 1995; Kletzin & Adams 1996). Both hydrogenation and aldehyde oxidation take place at such low potentials. During hydrogenation, nickel-iron hydrogenase cleaves hydrogen as an electron is lost to the Ni(II) centre. An adjacent iron centre is the binding site for the carbon oxides which are reduced to simple organic molecules (Cammack 1995).The portions in red are citations to what are known as "references". At the end of the paper are the full citations, which you can use to learn more about "the mechanism behind" the processes mentioned in the paper. In the above case the first two references are:
CAMMACK, R. 1988. Nickel in metalloproteins. Advances in Organic Chemistry 32, 297–333.CAMMACK, R. 1996. Iron and sulfur in the origin and evolution of biological energy conversion systems. In: BALTSCHEFFSKY, H. (ed.) Origin and Evolution of Biological Energy Conversion. VCH Publishers, Deerfield Beach Florida, 43–69.
Why did you evolve my words from a "b*itch for science" to "a bitch for evolution?"
That's an easy one -- because my wife was hurrying me to run to the store to get something, and I didn't have time to proofread my posts as usual.
Or do you have games of your own to play?
Not at all -- you'll notice that my point still stands when that snippet of quote is corrected.