Yet you continue to try to defend YOUR culture warrior with no degrees in any science writing about the RNA World and even outright lying about it.
The only aspect of that claim remaining to be addressed. Should those writing under pseudonyms be derided and ignored?
You’ve never proved that Meyer lied, as opposed to making an error. And you won’t even state the list of errors now, upon request, which suggests you can’t find many. Odd, given that you’ve been thundering about Meyer’s real or alleged errors for 10 to 12 years. You can’t remember what the errors are? You can’t find the page numbers for the statements that you have invested hundreds of hours of your adult life in attacking?
Last chance before the New Year: list all the misuses of “protein”, “enzyme”, “ribozyme”, and “peptidyl transferase” in Meyer’s first book, with the page numbers where the misuses occur.
I note, for the third or fourth time, that you cannot explain how naked strands of RNA, outside of the context of life as we know it (which is the life Cech is talking about in the statements you quote), could have originated life. In other words, you have no argument for the original RNA world hypothesis. And no matter how many times you repeat your mantra “We live in an RNA world today”, your lack of argument for the original RNA world hypothesis will remain apparent to all readers here.
It’s not an error if it’s not corrected.
False. I’ve pointed you to two summaries of the current RNA World, clearly noting which aspects Meyer omitted. I’ve quoted Meyer’s lie about the hypothesis itself. You don’t seem to understand those things at all, but you’re highly motivated not to.
I don’t claim to. I do, however, note that the fact that the enzyme at the center of protein synthesis is a ribozyme is the strongest evidence that RNA preceded protein. I note that neither Meyer nor you can explain that in terms of ID.
I also note that respiration-first OoL hypotheses also have significant merit, and that they appear to be completely incomprehensible to you, who assumes that the first life had to be cellular for no apparent scientific reason.
The central enzyme in protein synthesis is a ribozyme. That evidence is so strong that 3 of the leading lights of the DI have lied about it in print.
Good. But that leaves you in an odd position. Since your motive, based on years of reading your posts, is obviously to explain the origin of life without assigning any role in that origin to God, then you have to provide at least a rough-sketch account of how it might have been done, or you won’t convince a living soul that intelligence wasn’t involved. Your silence indicates you have not even a plausible rough sketch.
Even if it’s “evidence”, it’s not proof. And I doubt it’s even strong “evidence”; “evidence” gains its strength only from context, and you’re assuming that life originated by some sort of unguided chemical evolutionary process. The conclusion “RNA preceded protein” for you means, in effect, “Since life arose by an unguided chemical process, and one of the molecules must have arisen first, we must try to discern which was the first one; RNA’s role in protein synthesis is evidence that RNA arose first”; but it’s precisely that chemical evolutionary process that ID people don’t think it’s safe to assume.
Explain what? A hypothetical historical priority of RNA which you have not demonstrated? Why does Meyer need to explain the origin of life based on a hypothetical historical priority which you insist on, but he finds implausible?
The ID explanation for the origin of life is of course that the DNA-RNA-protein setup that we observe in life today was envisioned as a working whole prior to its actualization, i.e., that it was designed, and created, by an efficacious Mind. To an IDer, trying to figure out which molecule (DNA, RNA, or some protein) appeared first in the primeval ocean (or pond, or vent, or whatever) would be a waste of time, since it would presume that life originated by an unintelligent process. And why presume that, outside of some anti-theistic religious motivation? Why not treat both intelligent and non-intelligent explanations on a level playing field, and decide via an “inference to the best explanation”? Or, if one cannot decide, why not just say that we don’t know how life arose, and we don’t know whether unguided, unplanned processes would have been adequate to bring it about? Wouldn’t your vaunted “intellectual humility of scientists” require that admission?
Did I ever deny this? I briefly held to the error that ribozymes were proteins, but retracted it almost immediately. And so what if this is true? The RNA world hypothesis for the origin of life stands or falls, not on whether or not “ribozymes” are central to protein synthesis today, but whether or not naked strands of RNA, floating around in some medium prior to the existence of DNA, proteins, cell walls, etc., could have originated life. Meyer asked how that could have occurred, and neither you nor anyone else has since provided an adequate answer. (Nor is it clear why you so ferociously want to believe that blind chemical accident produced the first life, as that would not be a natural position for a Christian to adopt.)
Taking a closer look at Scholarpedia, the majority of its articles appear to be on the topics of Physics and Neuroscience, with some Applied Mathematics thrown in as well:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Scholarpedia:Topics
As to how reliable and/or biased Wikipedia is, the answer appears to be complicated. For example:
Greenstein and Zhu borrowed this taxonomy of partisan terms and counted their use in pairs of Wikipedia and Britannica articles on the same subject. They calculated bias as the absolute difference between the number of Democratic terms and the number of Republican ones. For example, if an article contained 10 terms associated with Democrats and only three associated with Republicans, its bias score would be seven.
They found that Wikipedia is significantly more biased than Britannica by this measure, and a bit more left-leaning.If the researchers had stopped there, the takeaway might have been that the wisdom of the crowd can’t be trusted, at least when it comes to politics. But they also factored in the length of the articles, as well as, in Wikipedia’s case, the number of edits. And once these are taken into account, the comparison looks quite different.
Wikipedia articles are longer, on average, than Britannica articles, and on a per word basis Wikipedia is actually slightly less biased. So Wikipedia’s slant may be more about a tradeoff between comprehensiveness and bias than the superiority of expert-written articles. In any case, there’s nothing in this research to suggest that Britannica would do any better if it extended its entries.
But it’s the relationship between bias and Wikipedia revisions that most redeems the wisdom of the crowd. The average article in the researchers’ sample received 1,924 revisions, but that number varied widely. And the authors found that “Wikipedia articles which have received more revisions tend to be more neutral.” The more the crowd works on an article, the less biased it is.[1]
Wikipedia has a whole article, linking to masses of scholarly sources, on the topic of the Reliability of Wikipedia, if anybody is interested.
Ouroboros? 
There’s also the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia, whose ‘Reception’ section in turn links to articles on Academic studies about Wikipedia, Criticism of Wikipedia, Racial bias on Wikipedia, Gender bias on Wikipedia, Health information on Wikipedia and Notability in the English Wikipedia (not to be confused with the English Wikipedia’s policy on Notability). 
Rubbish. The articles on origins get hundreds of revisions, but don’t become more neutral as a result, because the atheist-materialist cabal that controls the articles simply reverses every change coming from outside the cabal, and the initial bias remains. This is evident to anyone who has closely studied the Talk pages and revision histories for several of the articles. In fact, Wikipedia articles with fewer revisions are more likely to be neutral, because articles that strike people of a wide range of perspectives as reasonable and fair are less likely to generate proposed corrections. It’s the perception of non-neutrality that generates the revisions in the first place.
As for the notion that “the crowd”, due to its diversity, would act in a moderating way on biased articles, that sounds great in theory, but the actual practice on Wikipedia is otherwise. If “the crowd” were represented on Wikipedia (and I’m speaking of the US version of Wikipedia here, since that is almost always the one cited here) in proportion to the actual biases of the US population, then the articles on origins would show a weighted influence of about 40% creationist biases (which tend to favor ID), of about 40% moderate viewpoints that neither automatically reject nor automatically endorse ID, and of about 20% hardcore atheist-materialist biases determined to stamp ID out of existence. In that case, the final product, the articles, would look very different. But only the most politically naive fool imagines that the perspectives of “the crowd” are operative in the formation of Wikipedia articles on origins. It’s quite evident that the body which controls all the articles on origins is not representative of the composition of “the crowd”, but of a much more select subpopulation. And that body is quite evidently mostly young, male, atheist/materialist-leaning, with strong tendencies toward scientism, reductionism, and given to harsh polemical dismissals of opposing views. And in that masculine, young, anti-religious environment, female contributors, middle-aged or elderly contributors who are used to better manners, and religiously conservative contributors are going to feel unwelcome, and will tend, after having their edits rejected a few dozen times, often accompanied by insults in the Talk pages, to drop out and leave the articles in the hands of the most aggressive and unscrupulous and politically motivated editors.
It was suggested long ago, in one of Plato’s dialogues, that no one should be allowed to study philosophy (which back then would have included natural science) until the age of 30, so that age, maturity, the taking on of family and civic responsibilities, the accumulation of practical wisdom and of cultivated dialogical manners, etc. would take the youthful, show-off, masculine, testosterone-driven competitive character out of conversation and allow the calm, non-politicized, dispassionate search for truth. This is actually not bad advice for the founding of a popular-based encyclopedia. If Wikipedia articles were controlled by people, men and women, largely over the age of 40, past the age where they feel they have to constantly impress others with their brilliance, and with much life-experience in negotiating disagreements amicably, and capable of controlling their egos and working together collegially rather than competitively (as the pragmatic workplace, unlike the almost entirely ego-driven university, tends to cause people to do), the articles would be much less biased.
But guess who has more time to participate in Wikipedia articles, and not just in the writing of them but in the hours of edit-warring to preserve one’s changes from unreasonable opposition to them? Is it the 40+ year-old men and women who work 8 hours a day in offices and hospitals, and then spend 2 to 4 hours per day commuting to and from work, and, in the few free home hours they have, feel obligated to spend time with their children, or help their aging parents get into nursing homes, etc., and then drop into bed exhausted at 10 or 11 pm, to charge themselves up for the 6 or 7 am rise to get ready for the next day’s commute? Or is the young 20-something (mostly) males, being undergrad or grad students with lots of freedom of schedule, day and night? Or the young, single or married-without-children people without aging parents to worry about and free of such responsibilities as diaper-changing and 2 am breastfeedings, and often with (if they are of the “laptop class”) very flexible work hours, often able to work from home and stay up until very late in the evening)? The setup of Wikipedia guarantees that the young, the socially and professionally immature, the immoderate, and the arrogant will have more power than the middle-aged, the calm, the moderate, and the more truly collegial. The result will be that the articles will reflect much more the biases of the young group that produces them than the balanced view of the general population.
As it’s still last night in terms of my sleep, I’m counting this as a December 31st reply, but since my New Year’s resolution is not to respond to any PS posts for 2023, this is the last post (unless I weaken) for some time to come. (Though if any non-hostile PS commenters want to reach me, they can still do so through a private message on the PS system, and I will reply.) I wish everyone at PS a Happy New Year (though how happy it will be with someone raging on about Meyer and peptidyl transferase several times each week, no matter what the actual topic of conversation is, is a disputable question).
I thank Joshua for providing the forum and for inviting me to participate. I thank Daniel Ang and a number of other Christian posters for providing models of moderate intellectual debate. I thank several of the atheists here for confirming that the “New Atheism” is no more intellectually threatening to theism (and considerably less literate and cultured) than the old variety. And I expect that over the coming year, they will say time and again that ID is dead, and finished, and of no importance, and is not taken seriously by anyone, while expending thousands of hours of their time refuting and abusing it. There is no better indication of the threat ID poses to their view of life than that. Cheers, everyone!
This is the first bad news of 2023.
Given that the ‘high point’ of @Eddie’s 2022 career on this forum was getting himself suspended for a month for being more-than-his-usual-norm rude and unpleasant, I suspect that you will be in a small minority in considering this to be “bad news”.
Which doesn’t include you, because you didn’t even know that Wikipedia has separate articles for ID and the ID movement, even though you claimed familiarity with ‘it’.
Please Roy, if we covered everything that Eddie needed to know to have an informed opinion on an issue, but proved himself to be woefully ignorant about, we’d be here all week. 
There are two obvious consequences of this claim:
Both of these are not only counter to expectations, but also contradict the next sentence:
If non-neutrality generates revisions, then revisions should continue until an article becomes neutral enough not to generate them. Articles with a large number of revisions would be more likely to have achieved neutrality.
But the real reason why certain classes of articles have huge numbers of revisions is that they are targeted by partisans who disagree with and attempt to overwrite the majority viewpoint.
P.S. It’s amazing how much @Eddie knows about the qualifications, age, gender and philosophy of wikipedia editors of whose identity, work and processes he is ignorant.
That is an absolute lie, Eddie.
No, since your premise is a lie. But that’s all you’ve got.
Meyer had to lie about the objective evidence to convince his readers that RNA did not precede protein, or his book would be less convincing.
I’m not out to convince anyone of anything other than the fact that IDcreationists like you and Meyer lie about the evidence itself.
Eddie, could you possibly be more lame than that? Science doesn’t deal in proof. Hypotheses don’t make claims. Yet you’ve tried both of these falsehoods in your mendacious campaign.
Which you don’t have, if you repeatedly show that you can’t distinguish ribozymes from enzymes and protein from RNA. Your quotation marks are yet another attempt to deceive.
In real science, evidence that is predicted by a hypothesis is the gold standard. Even Meyer knows this. That’s why he simply lied about it.
And you’re repeatedly lying about my beliefs and assumptions, supporting the conclusion that the DI has no integrity.
But unless your hypothesis both:
it’s not science.
So, if that’s the ID explanation, how do you reconcile that with:
p. 304:
Problem 2: Ribozymes Are Poor Substitutes for Proteins
No, it wouldn’t. A curious IDcreationist would be testing hypotheses regarding the time when the intelligent design occurred. A curious IDcreationist would be testing hypotheses regarding the actualization of the design and when it occurred.
Because Meyer’s (and your) mendacity does not suggest that it is such an inference.
I do say that we don’t know. I do say that we have two hypotheses (not theories) about the first or early steps.
I say that you are lying about my motives, what I say, what I believe, and what I assume.
I oppose the lies scammers use to dupe innocent people, as well as those who try to defend scammers with more lies about me.
Yes, repeatedly, when you argued for months that Meyer wasn’t lying. You further denied it when you claimed that ribozymes are proteins. You even lied about Meyer’s lie!
You don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about, and you are clearly desperate to keep it that way.
Why don’t you come up with an analogy that illustrates either the complete idiocy (or for you, the complete innocence) of misrepresenting objective evidence in a book claiming that Biblical scholars are all wrong.
My analogy is that an integral part of a major chapter of this published argument is not knowing the difference between John the Baptist and John the Apostle, or between Mary and Mary Magdalene. When someone points out the dishonesty and/or idiocy of these falsehoods, you’d argue that it doesn’t affect anything else in the book.
There would have to be some hypothetical, concrete evidence thrown in that would have to be lied about many years after its publication, of course.
What’s yours? That’s might give you a better idea of the magnitude of the mendacity you are trying to defend in this case.
It’s not so clear because you need to lie about my motives to defend Meyer’s lying.
I might suggest, as a resolution: read some actual biology, by actual biologists. Then, by 2024, you will have no need to respond to most of the posts to which you currently respond.
You know, that topic only comes up because you won’t acknowledge the truth of the matter. If you’re not posting, it just isn’t going to come up all that much. And if you spend 2023 reading actual biology, you’ll be done with defending Meyer by 2024 and it won’t come up then, either.
It seems that Charles Marshall doesn’t share your opinion that Meyer ignores biology, he who accepted to debate with him and acknowledge that 1) the section of Darwin’s Doubt discussing the Cambrian and Precambrian fossil record was good scholarship and 2) that Meyer writes well and that he (Marshall) really enjoyed reading Darwin’s Doubt.
Not sure that if @Eddie followed your advice and read some of Marshall’s work he would be done with defending Meyer.
It seems that Charles Marshall does share Puck’s opinion:
But when it comes to explaining the Cambrian explosion, Darwin’s Doubt is compromised by Meyer’s lack of scientific knowledge, his “god of the gaps” approach, and selective scholarship that appears driven by his deep belief in an explicit role of an intelligent designer in the hidtory of life.
– Charles Marshall, ‘When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship’
[Internet archive of the review]
Yet more evidence of the lack of integrity of the DI and its supporters. Thanks, @Giltil.
Also, if one wishes to defend the integrity of Stephen Meyer, one should decidedly avoid bringing up Charles Marshall: