Evolution, as most biologists view it, is the process of allele fixation within a population due of differential reproductive success. How the first 'life' formed is not necessary for the study of that process. Just as chemistry can be studied and performed without knowing how the universe started, the common descent of Homo and Pan can be studied quite well without knowing how the first proto-life started.
"Or how would you evolve with out origins.
Interesting how anti-evolutionists lump in the ToE (biological evolution) with abiogenesis, solar evolution, cosmology, and even atheism. Even though all of those fields can be studied (relatively) independently and refuting one does not affect the others, combining them into one box allows them to claim they have all been debunked because a single very specific fossil has not been found. It is also interesting that every time a new fossil is found that supports the ToE, or a new star is witnessed forming, or the BBT gets a boost, the goal posts get moved to new territory.
You are quite correct, we could not have evolved without origins, however, the study of that evolution is not reliant on how the first organism was created (by nature or by God).
Is it necessary for you to know exactly how the first car was made to enable you to drive successfully, or to become a mechanic?