Raw materials for life

I don’t see that as a reasonable “why” in the context of design. Relative inefficiency would dictate that ribozymes wouldn’t be used at all.

Yes, those exceptions are notable, because there aren’t any extant protein alternatives. The RNA World hypothesis explains/predicts these relics very well.

That’s an objectively false claim.

Even if it were true, it doesn’t do anything to falsify the RNA World hypothesis, because these ribozymes have been evolving for billions of years. There’s no reason why peptidyl transferase wouldn’t acquire a frame of proteins. Again, the reaction center has zero protein participation. How do you explain that in the context of design?

That’s another objectively false claim, as @Rumraket pointed out recently:

I don’t, but then I have significant experience working in biochemistry, unlike Tour. Your bizarre personalization of science (“hurt”) is revealing in its polemicism. Normally, real scientists tend to depersonalize these matters and refer to supporting or falsifying hypotheses, not people.

Again, you’re dead wrong.

Why should anyone seeking truth treat Tour as some sort of expert? Is he a biochemist?