Agreed
True, but only within the context of living organisms. Evolution can also be observed in other systems that happen to have a mechanism of heritability.
It makes no sense to talk about pre-life evolution using terms like ‘gene’ and ‘DNA’ - and* in that sense only*, evolution can’t explain the origin of life.
but you do have molecular evolution and that is relevant to abiogenesis.
at least in this thread, people aren’t braying the “something from nothing” song.
Just wanted to add another thought to this (which still makes no impact on whether or not we describe pre-life chemical processes as undergoing evolution)…
In any system, it’s perfectly OK for parts of the system to go uphill, as long as the system either has a net energy input, or in the case of a proper closed system, as long as the system taken as a whole (including the uphill bits) is running in a general downhill direction.
But this is the point - the Miller experiments show that in a tiny container in a very short time span, with something roughly simulating the early earth, complex organic compounds could be created. With a container the size of the earth biosphere, and a billion years or more, who knows the odds of “life-sized” molecules forming? Plus, certain compounds become stable enough to form primitive building blocks to the next step, some of which cause other compounds to form, etc.
We do have some of the evolutionary path - from amino acids to proteins to RNA to DNA to virus-like particles to fully cellular organisms. The exact details will likely never be known, but there is not giant hole between plain carbon and DNA.
This is true, in a completely random system there will be pockets of order.
Indeed. The upshot of that TTC series I mentioned was that there is good experimental evidence to show that the creation of the building blocks of life is not a difficult step to overcome. There are plenty of ways that most, if not all, of the basic monomers can be created naturally. The tricky bits that are still to be worked out are how you get from individual monomers to complex reproducing macromolecules and, on a related note, how the monomers could have been concentrated to a level where they could begin to react.
But that’s quite tricky indeed, which is why I said we had no clear understanding of this process - certainly nothing like our understanding of the evolution of modern organisms.
Has a concrete definition of life been decided on?
I was reading this yesterday History of life - Wikipedia , and it seemed to me that there might be fundamental disagreements on what is definately is life, and what might be non-living chemical activity.
Not surprisingly, wikipedia straddles the fence: Life - Wikipedia
Is there a difference between living and non-living piles of chemicals and their activity? We like to think so, but there is some grey area. 
Chemical reactions happen because of the way the universe is structured/ordered. Electro-magnetic phenomenon happen because of that same structure (or “natural laws”).
However, while my car operates on some of those chemical/physical laws, it is not evolving. (As an individual, I only evolve (“learn”) emotionally, but not physically.) Using the word “evolve” on non-living processes does not seem “right”, somehow.
It’s already widely used in contexts that involve descent with modification, plus selection, for example:
Certainly it’s inappropriate to use it to describe some completely different processe(es), but not wrong to use it to describe what it is.
So, the air & gasoline in my car “evolves” into the various exhaust gases?
When iron rusts, is it evolving?
No. Of course not.