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.
This is a fallacy. Evidence against one theory is not evidence in favor of another theory. You can't support ID by providing evidence against abiogenesis. Furthermore, do you presume to know the psychology of an "intellegent designer"? Can you be sure that the "designer" might not have designed the first cell and then simply allowed evolution to take its course? No matter how much you want the two to be related, abiogenesis and evolution are completely independent of each other. (I can see why people try to associate them, BTW, since many supporters of evolution are also supporters of abiogenesis. Still, this does NOT make the theory of evolution dependent on abiogenesis or vice-versa.)