"either something is of nature, or it isn't. Period. That is not black or white thinking" ... prima facie black/white statement. But do you mean ... natural = exists and unnatural = doesn't exist? If so, then natural is maybe gray (or any other range of color). Also you misunderstood my statement. Exist/non-Exist is black/white thinking. But simply defining everything as natural ... isn't black/white thinking, it isn't dualist, it is monist. I should have broken my prior statement into blocks.
Trying to rephrase your point. But per sentence 3 ... you are stating that "nothing added" is the dynamic version. Everything that exists, exists (in some time some where). Anything that doesn't exist, doesn't exist (in any time anywhere). But not much exists, that exists, is everywhere and every time. Somethings may be universal (everywhere and every time) but not everything. Thus even in monism, it isn't necessary that if there is some life or some consciousness, that everything is alive and everything is conscious ... those could be shades of a spectrum.
You are over-reading my prior post. Abiogenesis is similar to but not the same as the computer example, since the computer at no time is alive, gradual or otherwise. Also I haven't brought supernatural as a concept into this string. Non-natural doesn't necessarily equal supernatural. I gave an example, a sophistry, where in the computer example, humans are the way that nature makes boot strap code (and how nature builds computers). But my example doesn't show that computers or boot strap code can develop any other way (which is what real AI implies, and living androids).
Again to summarize, for you, natural = existence = real. There is nothing unreal, nothing non-existent and nothing unnatural. And by implication, nothing supernatural. My point remains, redefining terms so that checkmate is a win, for both players ... is a cop out. It would be like defining anything and everything to be legal. Some things may be binary, or pluralistic .. monism as a "only have a hammer so everything is a nail" system. It is a fact that humans and computers both exist. If it isn't true that computers spontaneously assemble themselves, then why assume that humans came about that way either? That goes back to the "spontaneous generation" controversy in early modern times (at that time, microscopic life forms weren't apparent, not even a human fertilized egg).
One can test this empirically ... by putting some random silicon etc in a pile, and wait for 13 billion years, to see if anything interesting happens spontaneously ... or similarly put some random code (not hard to do) into a computer, and wait 13 billion years and see if Exchange email spontaneous emerges. However, per abiogenesis, if you put some random carbon compounds together in a suitable environment (maybe only on early planets) interesting things have been proven to occur. Carbon doesn't equal silicon, is why those are different. But then explain why that is ;-) The answer, in practical terms, since 13 billion year long controlled experiments aren't viable, is to hand wave like St Augustine, and say that only damn heretics ask damn questions. Use your professorial ex cathedra power to shut down the questions.