Thank you, cogitator, for taking the time to post these links, but (1) as for the Wapo article, it's mostly just an overview of current Darwinist thinking. The study referenced on Chimpanzee gene mutation and the theorizing on tool-kit genes really don't take us very far at all, and nowhere near meeting my objection (and one would have to examine the entire original source anyway to have a serious, meaningful discussion of it). And (2) the discussion by the blogger on the second link simply isn't very useful. The objection here goes far beyond not finding a "missing link" here or there in a particular postulated evolutionary tree.
But anyway, all this is just splashing about in the shallow part of the pool. All of this Darwinist theorizing about what random mutation and natural selection can accomplish must begin with at least a one-celled organism that replicates itself using genes that are subject to mutation. And to have a one-celled organism (which in itself is an astonishingly complicated machine) that replicates itself using gene controllers come into being from nothing in only a few billion years is simply impossible. It's the old analogy about how long would it take a monkey sitting at a typewriter to hammer out King Lear. The answer is never, for all practical purposes.
And no offense to anybody on these threads, but to be perfectly honest, I find these FR evolutionary science discussion threads to be exceptionally wearisome, and I think I will go back to the political/activism threads.
Thanks again, Cogitator, for your post.
Simply impossible in one step, but no one believe it happened in one step, or even a thousand steps. Natural replicators can be brewed up in any college chemistry lab . Chemistry does not have to be close to life to achieve self-replication. No one knows what steps might have led to replicating cells, so no one can calculate the odds. Perhaps it is impossible, but it is not outside the realm of science to find out.