Hello dcarraher and welcome another person from Ohio!
First, I want to say that this subject is very fascinating to me as a layperson.
This is another excellent example of premise-conflict. I'm really astonished that evolutionists would care to argue that life is indistinguishable from non-life. If there is no clear demarcation, then what is abiogenesis all about?
Why is it so astonishing? Clearly most people here can distinguish most life from most non-life, yet there are still current examples that blur this line you feel is distinct, not to mention conditions 4 BYA were much different than the present.
Could you please provide a definition that distinguishes life from non-life as RAZD asked? Is it difficult for you to imagine an organism that blurs the line of life/non-life?
This, btw, is a good example of why most conversations between evolutionists and creationists are pointless. To an educated creationist, this article is so clearly irrelevant to the entire argument of abiogenesis, it shouldn't even need refuted. To an evolutionist, apparently, this is practically first life, and a clear refutation of any creationist concerns over the impracticability of abiogenesis. Ah, well.
Whether or not "Darwinian Processes" as defined in the post above are common, is irrelevant to the validity of Evolution or Creation as an explanation of the origin of life. Support for natural selection as a generic process <> support for Evolution/refutation of Creation.
You point out in multiple places that you feel it is clearly irrelevant, but fail to explain why. Maybe I am missing something here....why do you feel it is it not relevant?
Thanks,
Joe
™ Version 4.2