Really?! This is inconsistant with what can be objectively seen today in medicine . . . one - small - change --> leads to disease of the cell, and it ceases functioning properly or outright dies.
So the addition of isolated features (which aren't immediately detrimental to the cell) is the way these biochemical systems get more complex. Through other changes those features may become essential for the cell.
Cute. However, wholely and entirely inconsistant with what we understand about the principles of biochemistry and molecular/cellular biology and what can be objectively seen.
So the only problem in this scenario should be the emergence of the first self-replicator(s).
True
Of course if we assume that it must be as complex as most modern single-celled organisms then I concede that it's practically impossible that it could have arisen by chance but I don't see why this has to be the case.
Again true - "impossibility" is this case occurs because the emergence of any life-like "self-replicator" is inconsistant with what is known and objective.
I think it's quite presumptuous to declare abiogenesis to be impossible.
And I, obviously, think it quite presumptuous to declare abiogenesis to be possible.
Where the hell did you study biology? Far and away, most genetic changes are neutral. Even deletion of entire genes usually results in no phenotypic change. Some organisms can double their chomosome set. Some can lose entire chromosomes with no ill effect. You never learned any of this? I am very curious to learn where you are attending medical school.