gz,

So close yet so far. You're on the right track though. The ability to replicate is important, however it's not the only criteria. Self-replicating molecules have been known for some time now. Replicating systems of molecules and DNA can be performed in the lab without the need for a living organism. It's little understood generally, but enzymes that are generally required for replication can be reasonably complex molecules (as enzymes often are), but they contain a metal ion in their active site (magnesium in most cases). What is not often known is that the catalytic activity of the metal ion in the enzymes active site can occur even WITHOUT the enzyme surrounding it. What the enzyme does is add specificity to the reaction, i.e. what molecules bind to it etc. This also has the added effect of increasing the speed (processivity) of specific reactions.
In essence, catalytic reactions with DNA and RNA can occur without the need for the proteins that surround the active sites the enzymes that generally perform these functions. Metal ions themselves can function as primitive enzymes catalysing a great many reactions.

The big mistake would be looking at the final product of billions of years of molecular evolution and expecting that we should be able to make cells from scratch in the lab right now. They are still working on how many genes are needed to comprise the minimum gene set for cellular life, and what are the simplest forms of these genes. It cannot be expected that even the simplest cells alive today are the simplest possible. They are still the products of billions of years of evolution.

Ancestral forms may even be as simple as cellular organelles mitochondria or chloroplasts, which are generally recognised as being simple cells which were subsumed as symbiotic life forms. They even have their own genomes and replicate separately from the rest of the cell. If all the minimum criteria that you have held to "had all the bases covered", then I guess that these organelles could be considered life forms in their own right. Ponder on this.

Bugsy,

I don't think we should regard the simplest cells "the products of billions of years of evolution". We do not know that.

Although it is completely logical to think something that exists must have come from somewhere, the abundance of earthly life-forms also places a very high burden-of-proof on the evolution theory.

In fact it is not what little evidence there is that matters. Rather, it is the total lack of OVERWHELMING evidence that is the problem.

If the theory of evolution is true, we should be observing concrete evidence of evolution everywhere we turn.

For a start, there is no observable proof that simplest cells are being created by nature TODAY that will evolve into higher life-forms billions of years later.

Such absence is a really glaring problem, I would think. And this is just one problem with the evolution theory.

Why don't you do some reading on the matter, eh?

Plug 'evolution' into Google scholar and away you go. Lack of overwhelming evidence my Aunt Fanny.

And what have we been talking about then? If abiogenisis happened, it only need have happened once, not everyday, and then all life is the product of billions of years of evolution. Even the simplest of cells. It is therefore unreasonable to assume that the earliest life forms would be exactly like these simple cells.

Bugsy: "If abiogenisis happened, it only need have happened once..."

This is only an assumption. A very questionable assumption that I suppose the evolution theory requires as its base.

In fact no less than saying God had created life in the beginning.

The claim that billions of years ago, there was an UNKNOWN combination of physical and chemical conditions that allowed abiogenisis to happen is not credible, especially when there is NO KNOWN natural process today. No way, Jose, no way. The above assumption is fallacious at best and requires a leap of faith.

I think what is regarded as evolutionary evidence may not be evidence at all, just the published result of some cumulative errors of judgement.

If you'd like, identify one "convincing" evidence and we shall see.

So, "[INSERT ENTITY OF CHOICE HERE] did it", is therefore more credible is it?

Ok, one piece of evidence about crocodiles:
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/v047448555324286/

Have at it.

Bugsy,
Sorry, don't have time now. This will have to wait.
Thanks for the discussions... cheers