Well on the one hand: the mathematical and chemical hurdles of the very first steps can be met with the right set of environmental conditions. Its plausible that other worlds may have settings that are more condusive to such early stages. Amino acids have been detected deep within meteorites for example. Assembly of protein or nucleic acid chains can be done with straightforward condensation reactions. Catalytic RNAs/ribozymes demonstrate how one molecule can act as both self replicating code and enzyme, thereby eliminating the chicken and egg dilemma of which came first the code or the enzyme that replicates it. Thats a significant start.On the other hand: I have to agree with you that we're still in the dark on several very crucial steps. Going from the RNA world to the DNA world means a slew of other necessary enzymes and the genetic code for them. Then there's the matter of how metabolic pathways became established (along with the archived code for it) . But we at least have some tantalizing indicators and leads that can bring us closer to some answers. The missing pieces to the puzzle may be out there. Or not. I simply think all this extra bit of information means that this is still an option worthy of consideration and so one doesn't have to automatically cry out "creator god" by default.
Midget, I'll post the following for those genuinely interested. You will also find a critique of the RNA hypothesis by Dean Kenyon a former prominent evolutionary origin of life biologist (and author of Biochemical Predestination)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp
Below is a critique of some of the problems of the frequently cited talkorigins abiogenesis arcticle.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/92593/1566935/post.ashx#1566935
I would also like to once again state that there are numerous ways of defining evolution and that some evolutionists themselves (even prominent ones) have included the origin of life in evolution. For some additional references: http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe07orlf.html#orgnlfvltnhsnxplntn
Also it is clearly included by Mayr in a paragraph in "What Evolution Is" (ironically also excluded in the same book's glossary). See also the definition by Kerkut. And of course even dedicated evolution books also frequently start with it with no demarcation between it and other evolutionary subjects.
This is not intended to argue that it must always be included in the various definitions. However, the above are sufficient to refute the claim often made in these discussions by many evolutionists that it must always be excluded.
Most importantly is should be acknowledged by everyone that the "origin of life" certainly is an important part of the "evolutionary" version of history- and it is history that the creation/ evolution debate is really about.
Finally, I would like to say that due to important personal factors and time constraints that I will be discontinuing discussions on the JWD forum as relating to origins science subjects.
hooberus