Why on earth would you limit yourself to a summary, John?
Why not read Tom Steitz’s lecture? Why not grapple with the evidence instead of going on about rhetoric?
"Francis Crick had wondered in 1968 whether the catalytic heart of the ribosome was all RNA. Realizing that EVOLUTION [caps mine] had faced the “chicken or the egg problem” (which came first?) because the first machine to make a protein could not have been a protein, he wrote “it is tempting to wonder if the first ribosome was made entirely of RNA” (Crick, 1968). Noller and coworkers attempted to establish that indeed the ribosomal RNA is respon- sible for its catalytic activity by using proteases to digest the r-proteins (Noller et al., 1992). However, many peptides in the 10K molecular weight range, as well as intact L2 and L3, remained. Consequently, this experiment did not confirm the hypothesis that the catalysis is done by the RNA component of the ribosome.
“When we examined the positions of all of the proteins that have portions that approach the heart of the PTC, we observed (Fig. 5) in 2000 that the closest protein component lies 18 Å from the PTC (Nissen et al., 2000). Even taking into account that a loop of protein L10e is disordered in this crystal and located in the neighborhood of the PTC, it cannot even hypothetically be extended into the PTC. Therefore, we were led to conclude in 2000 that “The ribosome is a ribozyme”. This was the first experimental verification of the hypothesis that had been advocated by many in previous years.”
That’s an EVOLUTIONARY hypothesis, John. Now can you explain the evidence in your own words? Why is the centre of the machinery that assembles every protein in your body a ribozyme?
Oh, and what would you say about the honesty/competence of anyone who calls PT a protein in light of this evidence?