My additional point is that reading those books completely misinformed you about a fact that is so important that it won the Nobel Prize.
No, you don’t understand the point in the slightest.
The whole point of the hypothesis is that life was entirely based on RNA catalysis before any protein catalysis arose. That’s why it predicts that we will find incredibly important functions, like the meat of protein synthesis, will still be handled by ribozymes. There’s no reason why an Intelligent Designer would choose a ribozyme for something so important, but evolution can’t replace it. That’s why there is nothing pedantic about my point.
Another question: why are the adapters in protein synthesis RNAs (tRNAs) and not proteins?
You’re moving the goalposts. You are also claiming that this is not important and that peptidyl transferase is a protein. You’ve only retracted one of those false claims.
Neither they nor Meyer put out this falsehood in passing. They base arguments on the false claim.
So, back to the OP, here is the argument they make:
“It follows that without some catalyst that promotes peptide bonds (for amino-acid sequences) or 3-5 phosphodiester linkages (for nucleotide sequences), there can be no materialistic route to proteins, DNA, and RNA.”
The current catalyst does precisely that. It is a ribozyme. Therefore, that “materialistic” route clearly exists.
“But the only catalysts we know capable of handling this task are enzymes and other protein-based products (e.g., the ribosome)”
This was known to be false 7 years before this was published.
You have now admitted that the ribosome is a ribozyme, so this challenge has been met in spades. Will they admit it? Will YOU admit it?
Calling the ribosome “protein-based” is like calling the Mona Lisa “wood-based” because it has a wood frame, while claiming that no one has shown that it is an oil painting. It also suggests deliberate deception to me.
“… and these in turn presuppose the entire DNA-RNA-protein machinery. This machinery, however, is precisely what origin-of-life research may not presuppose but rather must explain.”
And the fact that the ribosome is a ribozyme, with proteins as mere decorations around TWO rRNA cores (one for each subunit), explains that very well. That’s why it’s so important.
So, what’s your ID explanation for this relic?
No, let’s discuss the book whose flaws you said you were more than willing to address instead.
Nice try, but I’m not saying that. I’m saying that it is representative of ID scholarship–when you can’t explain the facts, hide them or blatantly misrepresent them.
Yes, I would say that ignoring the most important evidence necessarily invalidates any chapter claiming to address the RNA World hypothesis.
But then, unlike you, I’ve known that the ribosome is a ribozyme for 20 years, and we suspected it many years before that:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/256/5062/1416