Tell you what - I'll agree to briefly address your question, if you agree to do the same. You've got two evasion strikes thus far - one more and you're out. I'll even give you the last word in this thread. Fair enough? If you want to bash my respone to the origin vs. evolution of life topic, fine . . . but you must also address my question this time; otherwise, you're essentially admitting defeat.

A clarification of terms: the origin of life refers to the way(s) in which the first entities capable of replicating themselves arose. This is actually a question of physics and chemistry, not evolution. The evolution of life refers to the ways in which populations of those entities change over time. Natural selection is the mechanism by which adaptive evolution occurs; it is not, and was never intended to be, a mechanism by which replicators originated. As soon as those replicators arose, however, natural selection kicked in and contributed to their refinement. It is a fascinating topic and one of the enduring challenges in the life sciences. Go to Amazon, do a book search for "Origin of Life", and read more about it, if you're interested. Some classical ideas are covered in this excellent treatment from the mid-90's. The irony here is that if I hadn't pointed out this topic for you, you probably wouldn't have thought to try and hide behind it.

Now, for the last time . . . rather than just stating that natural selection is circular and doesnt explain all that much, you must 1) articulate why exactly the theory of natural selection fails to explain what it claims to explain (adaptive evolution), and 2) suggest even a hint of a putative idea that could correct for the supposed inadequacy of natural selection. Really, Fred . . . if you could do these two things, you would be a revolutionary. If you can't do these things, then you're just a complainer, and the world is full to the brim with those.