==The argument seems to be that, since abiogenesis is not understood, goddidit.
You just assumed what must be proved.
As for the rest, it has nothing to do with the debate. If you wish to stay on topic, please respond to the papers that the affirmative is based on using arguments that are specific to the same. Thank you.
All the best—GGG
Abiogenesis != Evolution
That we do not know how initial life came to be does not mean that we do not know how it changes over time. The paper is, in no way, shape, or form, about evolution, but about an entirely different topic.
Now, there is, in fact, a LOT of laboratory work going on in the field of abiogenesis. That anything particularly resembling existing DNA based life arose directly out of a prebiotic soup is not, afaik, on the list of possibilities under consideration. There’s still serious argument about whether genes or metabolism would have come first.
I won’t pretend to settle an argument which is raging, and likely will rage for quite some time, among the best and brightest scientific minds. I believe the author overreaches quite a bit in claiming to do so.