Here you go:
On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells, William Martin and Michael J. Russell, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, DOI 10.1098/rstb.2002.1183Feel free to point out any errors if you find any.
Most evolutionists deal with this question by running away and claiming evolution does not address the origin of life.
No, evolutionists only point out that evolution itself (as a process) does not address the ultimate origin of life when creationists make the mistake of trying to argue (implicitly or explicitly) that evolution "denies" that God could have had anything to do with the original life form(s) or that evolution can't be true for some reason if we don't know how the first life form arose.
That's when it is (correctly) pointed out that evolution as a process only comes into play when something replicates, and is not involved prior to the first replication (i.e. some other field of science -- or religion -- is going to be the place to look for how the first replicator came about).
It's like (correctly) pointing out that computer science remains valid even if we don't know/care where/how the metal in the computer originated.
On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells,
I said demonstrate, not present a hypothesis. Heck, the Bible is a hypothesis.
I have never seen this exchange on Free Republic. Usually some arrogant evolutionist makes fun of somebody's position on the origin of life but when the evolutionist is asked their position on the origin of life they dive for the tall grass claiming, like Homey the Clown, "evolution don't play that"
Most often you will see Evolutionist's interjecting evolution into a cosmology debate when in fact evolution has nothing to say about cosmology.