For instance, what is the origin of life, from which all other life sprang?
Unknown. Today there simply is no good scientific account of the origin of life although there are many interesting speculations.
Did only one organism start all present forms of life, from amoebae to whales?
Probably not. Even today we know that the simpler forms of life routinely share genetic material. Endosymbiosis is a generally accepted explanation of the origin of organelles in eukaryotes. And today's genomes are littered with remants of viruses.
Is life still being spontaneously generated, or was that only possible a couple of billion years ago?
Impossible to say given that we don't have a origin of life theory.
When most of life was extinguished during one or another extinction episode, did it all start over again from another primordial ooze, or did the few life-forms left over become the ancestors of all present life?
Ditto.
What type of evolution is responsible for the presence of non-living matter? Of energy? Of cosmic forces, etc?
Now you're getting into some better territory. It is thought that the universe's hydrogen and some helium condensed out about 300K years after the BB when the universe cooled enough. The heavier elements up to iron were created by fusion in stars. The heavier elements were created and spewed into space by super novas. These naturally occuring elements then combine to form the molecules of non-living (and living) matter. I would classify those theories as very reliable.
The total energy content of the universe is another matter. Some folks maintain that it's pretty close to zero with negative energy of gravity countering the positive energy of matter and light we observe.
Similarly for the cosmic forces, there are some speculations but nothing I'd consider reliable. For example, some folks think the universe is actually part of a megaverse. They think the "true" physical laws of the megaverse admit a very large number of solutions (i.e. laws of the cosmic forces). In most solutions the cosmological constant is much farther from zero than it is in ours. Large positive values cause rapid inflation and within these inflating universes there will be quantum fluctuations that create pockets with different solutions, our own being one.
Is it really possible for a species to become suited to its environment through a random process of mutation?
Yes, and here we're on pretty firm ground. One example is a bacterium in which a frame shift mutation allowed it to metabolize nylon. Frame shifts are about the most random kind of mutation there is. A good analogy is like inserting or dropping a bit in a data stream, the decoded characters would be essentially uncorrelated with the original message.
No. Hydrogen ions , deuterium ions, helium ions, and traces of lithium ions were created in the first four minutes after the Big Bang. It took about 500,000 years for the universe to expand and cool to the point where the high photon flux would not reionize these ions. Thus at about half a million years, these atoms captured electrons and created the cosmic microwave background. The rest of your post is accurate. It is probable that we are third generation or further supernova remnants. The high levels of carbon, oxygen, silicon, and iron are easily accounted for in nuclear physics depending upon the sizes of the stars. Higher elements are only accounted for in supernovas because it takes endothermic nuclear reactions to make them. This is also why they are so rare, especially for high atomic numbers.
Some very interesting observations you make here, edsheppa. A diverse mix of the accepted, the somewhat accepted, and the “kinda out there,” all in one post.
Of course, when it comes to cosmology, “kinda out there” is about as good as it gets in some areas, so no complaints here.
As for the last one, about species acheiving suitability through random processes... Well, it just doesn’t make much sense. Yes, I know the arguments, and I’ve seen the evidence, but it just doesn’t wash. It’s interesting, especially the nylon-eating bacteria, but this is on a very small scale, and shouldn’t really be used as a universal solution to a very difficult problem. Also, this begs the question of how the organism knows how to make changes in it’s own genes. I know I don’t know how to make changes in mine, so it must be either random, which, well let’s face it, the odds against some random mutation serendipitously making bacteria eat nylon, just when they really need to, are so much against it as to make it a practical impossibility.
So, what makes these changes? Is it guided? Is it the organism doing it to itself? Are gene-splicing viruses zipping around, looking for organisms in trouble? Do all organisms have these serendipitous genes already, just waiting for some nylon episode to confront them?
And if you, or more aptly science, don’t have an answer to these questions, then shouldn’t we at least consider the possibility that there is a guiding hand behind all life? It not only answers these questions, but it seems to be the only logical answer possible.