Chemical Evolution & Biological Evolution Are They Linked ?

This thread is not to debate the creation verses evolution issue, we have dozens of those.
But it has the singular focus of discussing the link between the two different scientific fields of study as they pertain to the total concept of evolution.
Let us admit what many posters have repeated many times, they are two different fields or mechanisms of science, also we accept that one is generally a science proclaimed as a theory and one is a hypothesis, and we know less about the later scientifically, and there is different idea's how it happened, but let's not attack a straw man here. We aren't arguing they are different, of coarse they are.

Here is an article on Chemical Evolution that really opens up all the different Hypothesis, again we are not trying to debate which one is correct, only the probable link it has with biological evolution.
The Origin of Life by Chemical Evolution?
One part of the article

Basically, what scientists are learning is that the complexity required for life (in terms of biomolecule formation and self-organization) is much greater than the complexity available by natural process (beginning with lifeless matter). This huge difference has motivated scientists to stretch their imaginations, to creatively construct new theories for reducing requirements and enhancing possibilities.

Here is another very interesting article on this subject, it is heavy reading so I sniped the points of interest to me.
Chemical roots of biological evolution: the origins of life
Some quotes from it

a big scientific riddle not yet resolved is what happened before the first self-reproducing cellular organisms appeared on Earth, likely between 3.8 and 3.5 billion years ago. Although biological systems consist of well-described sets of coupled chemical reactions, very little is known about the transition from inanimate matter to living entities, i.e. from the most complicated chemistry we can think of to the simplest biology. The majority of researchers in the field of origins of life have worked under the assumption that a population of self-replicating RNA (or RNA-like) molecules started competing for a limited amount of resources (i.e. nucleotides or analogous monomers) in their local environment

researchers have conjectured on a possible link between the emerging concept of chemical evolution and the established notion of biological evolution.....It is turning increasingly apparent that evolutionary theory can no longer keep the ‘black box’ of individuality closed....Two additional arguments can be given to support the necessity of merging the new systems approach and evolutionary theory.....one can reformulate the question of the origins of life in the following global terms: before full-fledged biological systems appeared on Earth, what systems could overcome the apparent thermodynamic barrier to complexification and produce the rather intricate self-reproducing entities that initiated evolution

Conclusion

In this prospective critical review, we have focused on the first steps of the process of the origins of life, which have important implications for subsequent stages....As a result, new perspectives and theoretical approaches to understand evolvability as a general property of matter, well-grounded in experimental data, should also be brought forth.

Well I think it's clear in this scientific article they prove the two are linked even if we don't fully understand how at this point.

I invite ATS members that believe in evolution or not, to share with us your perspectives, on the title question, there is three possible answers to, "are they linked" ? Yes, no and maybe/I don't know.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Good thread - will delve deeper when I have time.

Chemical Evolution does not negate the need for an Engineer...

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

They are linked, sure, but everything in the universe is linked in some way so it isn't saying much. The big bang is linked to the formation of our galaxy, laws of physics, star formation, etc but that doesn't mean they are the same thing or that one is required to be true in order for the other one to be.

If the big bang ended up being wrong, it wouldn't change what we already know about the formation and death of stars or evolution because that has been directly observed. Abiogenesis is not modern evolutionary synthesis and people bring up the fact that they are different because very often people argue against evolution by claiming we don't know the origin of life, and that is NOT an argument. What people really want do is argue against naturalism, so they equivocate the 2 things as 1, but that is logically flawed.

Even if abiogenesis is wrong, the fact remains that genetic code changes over time and leads to diversity in species. A creator COULD theoretically design life that capable of evolving to keep up with the constantly changing environment on earth. So arguing against evolution by referencing abiogenesis is like arguing against germ theory by bringing up the birth of the sun. They are completely different areas of research, one is confirmed and validated through tons of research, the other is still hypothetical and incomplete at this point, although there is experimental evidence.

Yes they are from an avowed evolutionists in a paper he wrote

molecular evolution are the basis for naturalistic explanations of abiogenesis. It is true that these do have some relation and overlap in the sense that molecular change (in genes) drives biological evolution. So, it is not necessarily invalid to join the two, especially when you consider that it is hard to draw a definitive line between life and non-life.