Your problem then is that this is not cellular evolution, but rather abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is on a much more speculative footing than the theory of evolution (not to say that there's no evidence favoring it). Once more for those who haven't been listening to these threads: Evolution is only concerned with what happens once a viable cell exists. It isn't concerned with how that cell came to be.
Correct.
Once more for those who haven't been listening to these threads: Evolution is only concerned with what happens once a viable cell exists. It isn't concerned with how that cell came to be.
I step into the "crevo" threads from time to time. Usually I don't find anything I didn't read ten years ago on the evolution group on Usenet.
I think evolution should be concerned about abiogenesis. If that didn't happen, or cannot happen, that provides strong evidence in favor of intelligent design. And if there must be an Intelligent Designer, why have evolution?
I agree that evolution should stand or fall on its own, independent of abiogenesis, based upon the available evidence. However, the way you look at the evidence (interpretation) changes depending upon the result of abiogenesis and ID.