That is a helpful activity @Guy_Coe.
“Ignoring” and "not aware of " are different things. I’ve pointed out the abzyme work in the past:
I’ve always wondered what Axe thinks about the formation of high-affinity antibodies in the vertebrate immune system. Specific binding isn’t a “function”?
He would accurately point out its not an enzyme. However he would also incorrectly say that this a systme designed to produce high affinity, and therefore is not relevant
I would respond, the antibody system is just like evolution then, a system created by God to create new proteins.
I also remind him that the theory of intermediate stabilization predicts that antibodies, because the can adaptive ly bind things, can be catalysis. This is exactly what we find in Abzymes.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/catalytic-antibody
This demonstrates by theory and example that selective binding is functionally equivalent to catalysis. The reason we do not select for enzymes in experiments is because it is extremely difficult for humans to select for catalytic activity at remotely the same scale we can select for binding.
That was not addressed to @Agauger though. So this appears the first time she has encountered it. As I noted, the objection that this is “designed” because it is in vitro not a coherent objection. It seems that @Agauger backtracked a bit. Given that they haven’t engaged that evidence yet, I imagine it will take some time to take it in. I’m much more hopeful about @Agauger, who has consistently engaged, than Axe, who has not.