Then you know that Abiogenesis and TToE are independent of one another. And that the former is a lot more elusive, since we don't have the billions of artifacts as we do with the latter.
I would go so far as to say that those who accept TTOE as fact are the ones who don't understand it, because those who do understand it see it's flaws.
If you know of any flaws, please feel free to post them. As a GENERAL SCIENTIFIC THEORY, TToE holds together better than almost any other scientific theory. There certainly has been no scientific theory alternative even proposed -- no Einsteinian to the Newtonian.
Millions of scientists across the world understand and use TToE constantly. Many attempt to widen its picture by puncturing details, but none have ever been able to come up with a scientific alternative.
The problem is that the ToE comes to a dead screeching halt when the question of what the first cell evolved from.
The other thing that throws a monkey wrench into the matter is that variation within species is well recognized by everyone. Extrapolating it to assume that enough variation can occur to give rise to completely different species is only suggested but not demonstrated beyond the shadow of a doubt by the fossil record.
All the lab work only indicates that wide variation can occur, but the populations produced are still recognizable as being identified with the populations from which they occur.
IOW, they're still fruit flies, bacteria, whatever.
The lab work also in no way demonstrates that naturalistic explanations are even possible. The lab work is all the result of intelligent manipulation.
Yes, the ToE is the best science has, if you want to postulate a naturalistic, God free theory of how life got here. But it doesn't mean it's right because it's the only one science has, and it doesn't mean that we have to accept it because it's the only one science has, and it doesn't mean that we're ignorant, stupid, uneducated, ungodly, creatards, or IDiots because we don't agree with those who think it has value.