That RNA based organisms are hypothetical(viruses don't count, they cannot self-replicate and they have a protein shell--something evidently precluded by this "Thomas Cech earned the Nobel Prize in 1989 for discovering that this isn't always true.").
And while you are at it also complain to MIT.
Because of the extra hydroxyl group on the sugar, RNA is too bulky to form a a stable double helix. RNA exists as a single-stranded molecule. However, regions of double helix can form where there is some base pair complementation (U and A , G and C), resulting in hairpin loops. The RNA molecule with its hairpin loops is said to have a secondary structure.
The point of this discussion, is that it is almost a consensus that RNA is too unstable a molecule to be the origin of life. But you can believe otherwise, eggshells included.
Of course they're hypothetical. But you were discussing the hypothesis. And if you're going to claim the lability of RNA prevents such an organism from existing, you have to address the objection that the organism had surely evolved a means to protect its RNA.
And while you are at it also complain to MIT.
At one stage you used to use primary data to argue your point. I'm disappointed you're resorting to duelling quotes. See, it doesn't matter if Jim Watson himself told you RNA double helices aren't stable, there are at least a half dozen perfectly stable RNA double helical structures in the protein data bank. Try this or this or this.
The point of this discussion, is that it is almost a consensus that RNA is too unstable a molecule to be the origin of life.
No doubt there is among your pals at Designed Universe.