"In fact, they seem to not be able to grasp the point that one cannot model probabilities with that many boundary conditions with any accuracy at all, and that one cannot look at statistics in hindsight with any meaning."
As I said, they were being generous. The _Chemistry_ prevents it from being possible at all. If you would like to instead argue it on the chemistry, then great. It simply isn't possible.
"No one is claiming the abiogenesis model does this to a tee yet, and it may never."
In fact, chance and necessity do not have the causal power to do this, period. This was what the article argues. Not only have we been utterly failures so far, but that chance and necessity simply DO NOT have the ability to build a full Shannon-Weaver communication system and appropriate messages by themselves.
"This doesn't in any way falsify the vast amount of evidence that still supports evolution through the well-documented 3.5 billion year history of life on earth"
It does falsify the idea of life emerging on its own, which is precisely the underlying basis of Universal Common Ancestry. Without life arising from chance and necessity, Universal Common Ancestry is no longer necessary. See here:
http://crevo.blogspot.com/2005/04/overselling-universal-common-ancestry.html
http://crevo.blogspot.com/2005/03/some-comments-on-homology.html
As for the 3.5 billion year history of life on earth, being an expert in mantle processes, he does in fact have the skillset to analyze this. And, he shows why the Paleozoic and Mesozoic are the result of giant world-wide catastrophe, not a slow sedimentation over billions of years. This is, in fact, his specialty, for which he is hired by Los Alamos National Laboratories, and for which NASA uses his code.
This essay is actually the culmination of a multi-year Origins debate. You can see the debate in full here: http://globalflood.org/letters/letterindex.html
As I said before, calcuations of probability in systems with that many boundary conditions are not possible at all. The model was not "generous", it had no bearing on reality whatsoever.
Abiogenesis is a hazy area of science, but it certainly hasn't been falsified. In any case, it has nothing to with any other theories of evolution, such as humans and apes evolving from a common ancestor, for example.
And, he shows why the Paleozoic and Mesozoic are the result of giant world-wide catastrophe, not a slow sedimentation over billions of years.
Absolutely ridiculous. Anyone with a full understanding of a high-school level earth science course could understand why. Geologists abandoned catastrophism over 300 years ago because it doesn't explain anything observed in the geological world. The advent of radiometry in the 20th century was the final nail in the coffin of this line of reasoning, lone crackpots aside.