Not really. It just pushes the problem back to where it's always been. Evolution requires self-replicating organisms, but nowhere are they required to be cells - self-replicating molecules fit the requirements of the theory of evolution perfectly, but the theory makes no claim that such self-replicators arose through purely abiogenetic processes, nor does it explicitly or implicitly require such. How the first self-replicators came about is fun to speculate about, but it isn't a part of the theory of evolution - so long as self-replicators exist, that theory is satisfied no matter whether it was abiogenesis, God, leprechauns, space aliens, or something else that created them.
But of course, you know this...
Well, it shouldn't be part of the TOE, and real evolutionary scientists don't treat it as part of the theory, but some popularizers like to pretend it is. This is unfortunate, because a lot of people think they have to oppose the TOE or else they're endorsing atheism.
Yes, but the words I quoted and the argument presented in them come from a "Darwininian". My words were instructive as to their relevance. After all, the whole point of the author of that page was to convince someone of abiogenesis. And of course, I also wished to point out (again) that the Darwininians use "fact" and "theory" in a 3 card Monte fashion.
That is only a half-truth. Abiogenesis was part of evolution for some ten years after Pasteur disproved spontaneous generation. Only then did Huxley write it off as part of the theory. This is only the first example of evolution having to remake itself in the face of scientifically indisputable facts. Like the Communists, evolutionists now say that it never was part of the theory, just like now that descent of humans from monkeys has been disproven they also say that it was never a part of the theory. Seems every time evolutionists are proven wrong they claim they never said what they had been saying.
Yup, the evidence presented in the FAQ quoted by andrewc pushes the problem of abiogenesis back where it has always been - the dreams of atheists. The following is why abiogenesis is not science and is totally impossible based on our scientific knowledge (which as our knowledge has increased, has made the possibility of abiogenesis even more impossible):
There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).
The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.