It would, if it were ever demonstrated. What we actually have right now are researchers trying to figure which route to life is most probable, which are unlikely, etc.
As we go back the definition of "life" becomes less obvious. Is a closed autocatalytic network "alive"? It metabolizes, grows, evolves, but doesn't have a genetic code. Is a lipid membrane with a few catalysts on the surface "alive"? What if the catalysts help make more lipid and catalyst?
why do you think an "off-planet" origin of bacteria is necessary in the first place
I don't. I was saying that would be compatible with later evolution.
sorry, no cell, no evolution. It's quite simple, really, but grasp at straws if you must.
Cells are necessary for life as we know it today. It seems reasonable to restrict "evolution" to the study of the changes in cells and their genetic material over time.
That does not mean they're necessary at the beginning of life. It is quite likely that earlier forms of life had no genetic code, for example. There is active research going on to try and find out just how the code evolved.
It's quite simple, really, but grasp at straws if you must
Whatever are you talking about!?
Really? When was the last time you saw any living organism without a genetic code. "Life" is life is life, there is no definition outside of what is objective about the cell. Furthermore, "life" requires too many necessary conditions (read: a few million correctly balanced biochemical rxns), all in perfect equilibrium, to be called "life" - you cannot build life one rxn at a time, a even a few hundred rxns built at a time would not be enough to be called life - you see all the rxns of life are already dependant on other rxns already existing and in place, and these rxns are comepletly dependant on another set of rxns. You can't escape this.