@oristarA,
Heres what the evo-library at U Cal Berkely has to say about "evolution being responsible for the origins of life on earth" and "neutrality of all evolution"
Quote: MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.
CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.
MISCONCEPTION: Evolutionary theory implies that life evolved (and continues to evolve) randomly, or by chance.
CORRECTION: Chance and randomness do factor into evolution and the history of life in many different ways; however, some important mechanisms of evolution are non-random and these make the overall process non-random. For example, consider the process of natural selection, which results in adaptations — features of organisms that appear to suit the environment in which the organisms live (e.g., the fit between a flower and its pollinator, the coordinated response of the immune system to pathogens, and the ability of bats to echolocate). Such amazing adaptations clearly did not come about "by chance." They evolved via a combination of random and non-random processes. The process of mutation, which generates genetic variation, is random, but selection is non-random. Selection favored variants that were better able to survive and reproduce (e.g., to be pollinated, to fend off pathogens, or to navigate in the dark). Over many generations of random mutation and non-random selection, complex adaptations evolved. To say that evolution happens "by chance" ignores half of the picture. To learn more about the process of natural selection, visit our article on this topic. To learn more about random mutation, visit our article on DNA and mutations.
As a former chemist there are many really fine chemical process terms for the origins of life on earth, why must you , without anything but eagerness to accept whatever is written for Huffpo, dismiss the way most scientists (THOSE OF US ACTUALLY WORKING IN THE FIELD), consider the entire nature and focus of naturql selection.
Your streak of obtuse stubborness is kinda funny to me.
We alrady have names for molecular prebiotic reactions such as " zymatic Cascades" , "polymerization reactions" or even "Surface chem reactions (including 'sorption mechanism chains). Today there are about 15 different abiogenic methods through which life appeared (and then evolution took over). The Huffpo says only 7.
ALL these methods are, as of today, hypotheses, some with included evidence (like adsorption of polymers onto expanding clays )(or development of other polymers by the chemistry of H2S at mid ocean vents). The rules are strictly chemical which , to most of our minds, are NOT definable by natural selection as first proposed by DArwin.
Oh well, I can only try to get you to eat your spinach.