Why is it that an ARBITRARY distinction is being made between what you have defined as evolution and explanations for the origin of life? Are you saying that questions concerning the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution? And if it has nothing to do with evolution, then how to you explain the existence of your first species? In other words, are you telling me that evolutionists are to some extent assuming their conclusions and saying that there is no need to explain the origin of life?
The evolutionary model describes how populations imperfect replicators under selective pressure may change over time. It says nothing about the orgin of those replicators. It also says nothing about the origins of the chemicals of which life is made up. Nor does it say anything about the origin of spacetime which those chemicals are embedded in.
It is a matter of bounding the field of study. This is done in ALL areas to make progress and communication organized enough to be manageable.
The original imperfect replicator may have been zapped into existance by a god, powerful alien, scientist in our own future or have always existed in an eternal universe. None of that matters to the science involved in biological evolution.
If you think that ALL study should be mushed together into one big whole that's fine. It still says nothing about the CHEMISTRY of abiogenesis.
Asking a biologist to dig into the chemistry is silly just as asking the chemist to delve into the quarks in the protons.
Of course, we are all interested in orgin of life questions. They are being actively researched by chemists as we type.
The source of "life" makes not one iota of difference to study of biological evolution that I can see. Can you or the author offer any reason whatsoever that it might?
™ Version 4.2