Right. I do not wish to discuss it, because it is only relevant to meat machines that have organs and functions to evolve, and a fixed DNA matrix in which to take these single steps to which you refer. If the thesis is that the process of evolution preceeded DNA and meat machines, than arguments apropos to the requirements and behaviors of DNA and meat machines, are--try to follow me now--utterly irrelevant.
You keep going back and forth between evolution and abiogenesis because you cannot contradict my devastating statements against either. Yes, the above does not apply to abiogenesis. However, I already demolished that one in post#1244:
For one thing, non-life cannot 'evolve'. YOu need a complete living thing to start off the life process and that requires at a minimum some half million DNA pairs. We do know that there is no needful arrangement of these pairs as regarding chemistry. We do not know of any DNA even in non-living things. Besides the arrangement of the DNA problem you have a few others in achieving life from non-life. One is that it takes more than DNA to make a living thing. You need the proteins, and the whole organism for life to work and be able to replicate itself. You thus have a chicken and egg problem here. In addition you have the problem of RNA reading the symbolic DNA code. This is impossible without a designer.
My argument against evolution is concicely stated in post#1265 just above. Pick and choose what you are arguing about and we can discuss that. Stop trying to purposely confuse the issues by saying that the argument against evolution does not apply to abiogenesis and that the argument against abiogenesis does not apply to evolution.