Gee, then you'll have no difficulty citing the precise words (no more, no less) in the Theory of Evolution itself that preclude an Evolutionary explanation for inanimate matter evolving into the first living cell.
Please tell me if I go over the word limit. I’d just hate to disappoint on a technicality …
Here’s a definition from Wikpedia:
In biology, evolution is the change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by shifts in the allele frequencies of genes. Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones.
Sharp-eyed readers will no doubt note that the theory requires shifts in allele frequencies of genes (see above paragraph). This means that for evolution to take place, one must first have alleles and genes themselves, which, in turn, occur only in living organisms. Thus, the theory assumes the existence of life before evolution can take place. Which, in turn, means, the origin of life is outside the theory.
There's also the line stating, "Over time, this process can result in speciation, the development of new species from existing ones." I hope this does not put me over the limit, but it does help to illustrate the point: the TOE is about new species from old. (Insert "Aladdin's Lamp" joke here). If you don't have the "old" species, you can't have a "new" one. QED.
That's incorrect. Allelomorphs (unabbreviated alleles) are merely genetic data at a specific point on a chromosone.
This appears in non-living genes (read: dead organisms) as well as in our electronic datasets of decoded genomes.
Moreover, it is problematic to guess, as you have done, that genes instantly poofed into existance in the first living cell rather than evolved from inanimate matter.
It just runs contrary to your above guesses...as the first species *was* new.
That is a mere hyposthesis stated as a fact.