The problem of the origin of life is virtually ignored by almost every FR evolutionist. It is not a separate question. The problem is that even evolutionists recognize the impossibility of the 'primordial soup' suggestion. that someone is willing to finance expensive research into the question means nothing other than a personal animosity to the only other possibility; and that is the existence of a Creator.
" The problem of the origin of life is virtually ignored by almost every FR evolutionist. It is not a separate question."
Sure it is. Ever since Darwin said the origin of life was outside the scope of his theory.
On a previous thread Dimensio wrote:
I submit five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms.a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms.
b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension travelled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms.
c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop.
d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence.
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.
From a post by Dimensio here.
Evolution can proceed, after life begins, no matter which of these five scenarios took place. Attempts to say the theory of evolution can't be accurate, because the specific method for the origin of life is unknown, are false.
Nobody ever claimed that evolution (Darwinian or otherwise) solved the problem of the origin of life. However, it does narrow the problem by postulating a few origins (ideally only one) rather than millions.