I'm even more shocked at your claim to know the science, while claiming that Nobel-winning work is "meaningless detail." Have you brought this up with the Committee in Stockholm?
You're missing the larger context, Marty. The title of the chapter is "The RNA World," is it not?
Now, please explain to me what the rest of Meyer's paragraph has to do with the purpose of the chapter. It's just a sophomoric recitation of high-school molecular biology, while he makes objectively false claims about:
1) The prediction of the hypothesis that ribozyme relics will be found performing non-redundant, essential functions like splicing and translation; and
2) The strongest evidence supporting the hypothesis. The most abundant RNA in your body catalyzes the synthesis of all your proteins.
So, Marty, please go through all you claim is context and explain its relevance to the RNA World hypothesis. And if you're going to claim that Nobel-winning work that confirms a prediction of it in spades is "meaningless detail," please explain why an Intelligent Designer chose a ribozyme. Meyer can't, and I doubt that you can either.
Please explain the relevance of the sophomoric description to the RNA World hypothesis, Marty.
No, Marty, you're dead wrong. Anyone reading in any depth whatsoever about the RNA World hypothesis would learn about the work published in 2000. And many others never thought that the heart of the ribosome was a protein. They thought it was a composite. The astounding thing about the evidence that Meyer deceives his readers about was that NO protein managed to get inserted into the active site.
And your claim that Meyer thought this is not consistent with any evidence.
Yes, the most important one, while he misrepresents the hypothesis itself and drowns his readers in high-school-level molecular biology.
Your claim that the strongest evidence for the RNA World hypothesis is a trivial matter is what is completely unwarranted.
Again, if you think that an ID hypothesis explains the Designer's choice to use an inferior RNA catalyst, explain it.
Then you should take it up with the Nobel Committee in Stockholm, I guess.
The bottom line is that Meyer writes a chapter on The RNA World but misinforms his readers about both the hypothesis and the strongest evidence supporting it. That's what ID is about. Not just different interpretations of the same evidence, but concealing and misrepresenting evidence.