Replies

If I may chime in with a few questions - has "evolution" ruled that the origin of species and the origin of life are mutually exclusive?

It's not a matter of rulings. The theory of evolution covers a specific scope, based upon the processes that it involves. Amongst those processes are organisms that replicate imperfectly. The process by which the first life form came into existence must have involved, in at least one step, a point where there were no organisms replicating imperfectly. As such, the theory of evolution cannot address life origins.

It seems that if the hypothesis is that species evolve from predecessors, and since "evolution" concerns itself with predecessors, then why not be concerned with the original predecessor?

Because how the first life form came into existence doesn't matter to how its offspring and their successive generations of offspring evolved. It's like insisting that you need to know where the metal originally came from before you know how to build a car.

I posit three scenarios: the first life forms came about through natural, undirected processes; the first life forms came about through a divine agent zap-poofing them into existence or the first life forms were seeded on Earth by time-travelling humans. Would evolution require that any one of those possibilities be true? If so, can you explain how one of the others being true would falsify the theory of evolution? If not, then how the first life forms came to exist is truly irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

At what point in the progression does "evolution" say "I'm done - can't go there"?

When you go back to where you don't have imperfect replication.

When you go back to where you don't have imperfect replication.

No one ever uses this argument. It is a complete and total strawman.
Define this, Be specific. Give citations.
Provide evidence. Got a citation for this?
Support this claim with evidence.
All premises in science are materialistic. Science can't make meaningful statements about anything else.
Perhaps you could make a real fool out of me by stating something in science that is proven.
Are you just going to blow me off again for daring to suggest that your assertions be supported?

If so, can you explain how one of the others being true would falsify the theory of evolution? If not, then how the first life forms came to exist is truly irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

Well, actually it seems that if any of the three candidates you posited as possible agents in originating life were "the originating force", then that force may have acted at other times.

It seems that it would be quite relevant to evolution, if it were subjected to such a force even once after the "origin".