There is a vast network of information flow in a typical cell, and along with that flow there is a vast network of error checking. Damage to DNA sequences is remedied, the transcribing of DNA is checked and corrected, and at the ribosome the translation process is checked and controlled. In fact, recent research has found that the ribosome not only carefully sets up the codon-to-amino-acid translation process for success, but if an error is made the ribosome detects it and takes action after the translation process.
When the ribosome detects a translation error it takes action 10,000 times faster than it normally does. "These are not subtle numbers," explained the lead researcher. As one report explains, "the ribosome exerts far tighter quality control than anyone ever suspected."
How does the ribosome do it? The ribosome--which creates proteins--consists of RNA and protein molecules. If the ribosome is the machine that builds proteins, then from where did the ribosome's proteins come in the first place? Evolutionists believe that initial versions of the ribosome--the proto-ribosome--had only the RNA molecules and the proteins came later.
Perhaps so, but the translation task is not simple, and the ribosome's proteins do not appear simply to be innocent bystanders that evolution, for no particular reason, kludged onto the ribosome. Rather, the proteins are deeply embedded in the ribosome, and appear to be important for both the ribosome's structure construction and conformation. This is probably why RNA-only proto-ribosomes don't seem to work.
But this is not all. Even ignoring the problem of obtaining an RNA-only translation machine, the evolutionary hypothesis raises the question: From where did the protein-coding sequences come which it would translate? In other words, even if a long sequence of RNA residues just happened to assemble and fold and function as a proto-ribosome, why would it be selected for if there were no protein-coding sequences lying around? One could add to this a long list of other requirements, such as a ready made pool of amino acids, and of course something for the newly minted protein to do.
Of course evolutionists can always speculate. For instance, perhaps a functional RNA molecule just happened to also code for a useful protein. How convenient.
Fortunately, in a world where confessions of evolution's heroics are rare, one nobel laureate scientist gave this judicious observation: "How evolution managed to progress from making a random peptide to messenger-directed synthesis, we haven't a clue." And yet evolution is a fact? I think I want my money back.