The theory remains no matter how much it evolves itself. In other words evolution is the be all and end all of explaining life. (once it's actually going) No other theory can explain life. That is a supposition.
That the theory of evolution is the correct explanation for the diversity of life is a conclusion, not a presupposition. It might be an untrue conclusion, but it is certainly a conclusion.
It's not up to the evolutionist to explain the origin of the first life form. (Although I bet you'd have it under your umbrella if it could be proven). Life itself is a presupposition as far as the evolutionist is concerned.
Depends what you mean by 'evolutionist'. The origin of life is certainly studied by biologists and chemists who almost universally accept the theory of evolution. Maybe, the theory of evolution will one day be seen as an explanation for the origin of life or maybe the theory of evolution will include it once it is discovered.
At this time, the theory of evolution doesn't pretend it holds all of the answers regarding life, only some of the answers about how life evolves (hence the name).
The presupposition here is that the evolutionist is not expected to confirm dates, they're supplied for them and the evolutionist accept them.
False. Some evolutionary biologists do work on '
molecular clocks'. These clocks are calibrated using one date provided by geologists, and can then be used and compared with other dates geologists have provided. Examining DNA in this way has provided some significant correlations regarding the length of time to common ancestry with the dates provided for said common ancestors by palaeontologists/geologists.
Nothing outside of an evolutionists observation is or can be real
Then why investigate anything? Sometimes things are beyond our investigation now, but some new technique may reveal it to be. This is different from the assumption of naturalism. If that was all you were saying then it applies to all scientists who assume naturalism in order to engage in methodological naturalism (science).
However, one doesn't need to be naturalist (as opposed to supernaturalist) to be a scientist. Supernaturalists can still arrive at the conclusion of evolution so the presupposition even then is not
required.
Evolutionists presuppose that matter existed, It is not up to them to prove it. It's just taken for granted because the astronomers told them. And it fits their agenda.
All proponents of all scientific theories assume that the entity they are explaining exists. Why would we try and explain gravity without first assuming it exists? There are several theories that exist to describe elements of our universe before matter existed, but germists (proponents of the germ theory of disease) and atomists (atomic theory proponents) both assume matter exists in order to explain what they seek to explain.
This isn't really a presupposition, it's an observation. The presupposition is that we can trust our observations of the universe.