So? All science operates by strictly defining the scope of its investigation. I still don't see any reason the science of evolution should expand its scope to include origins except to satisfy your insistence that it do so.
My answer (and I am not a scientist) would be that evolution begins once there are self-replicating life forms. My answer to what there was before that, and how it got to the point of self-replicating life forms, would be "we don't know." It seems like you won't allow science to answer "we don't know." But that's your problem, not science's.
It's like we're watching a ball rolling down a hill, and you keep saying "how'd the ball get to the top of the hill in the first place?" It's a good question, but not knowing the answer to that isn't an obstacle to studying the path of the ball as it rolls.
Evolution includes all of those sciences with which creationists disagree. (That's one of the contributions of creation "science.")
Which is exactly why my point from the beginning was, "Unless you identify which biological systems you believe spontaneously generated themselves, you are committing the fallacy of exclusion."
I even addressed this specifically TO YOU when I said, "It all depends on what you define as a 'first life form' and what biological systems that alleged life form would have that were spontaneously generated without evolution. If any selection is involved in the appearance of this first 'life form', then evolution was involved and the fallacy of exclusion applies." That was posed TO YOU way back in post 658.
Now you seem to have forgotten all about it. What is it about evolution that makes it's adherents unable to follow a train of thought?