Putting aside the age of the reference, Kenyon has done nothing new here when he says:
So we have now a picture of immense sub-microscopic complexity. And so no longer is it a reasonable proposition to think that simple chemical events could have any chance at all, to generate the kind of complexity we see in the very simplest living organisms.
This is basically saying "It's too complex, therefore it couldn't have evolved". No reason is given other than it being 'too complex'. This is nothing more than the famous argument from incredulity. Until someone can determine a point where something becomes 'complex' and a substantial reason is put forth as to why 'chemical evolution' cannot produce something of such 'complexity', it is a pretty empty argument.
™ Version 4.2
