[FactQuest]

The attempt to link the origins of life with evolution is a creationist diversionary tactic.

You got your dodges, and you got your dodges. True, abiogenesis is not part of the Theory of Evolution. It is, however, usually taught side-by-side with it. It is advanced as good science. They are intrinsically related. I can argue them together, or apart, no big deal either way.

[Dimensio]

True, abiogenesis is not part of the Theory of Evolution. It is, however, usually taught side-by-side with it.

Where is it taught side-by-side? Evolution is a theory, abiogenesis is just a hypothesis. No credible institution should give abiogenesis the same level of credibility as the ToE.

It is advanced as good science.

What, exactly, is advanced? The teaching of the two together or abiogenesis itself? Who is advancing it?

They are intrinsically related.

No, they are not. Abiogenesis might be dependent on evolution, but it is a one-way dependency. Starting with accepting abiogenesis would require something like evolution to explain the current diversity of the species, but evolution does not require that abiogenesis occured. Evolution theory us unaffected by the means by which the first life forms came into existence. Evolution starts once the first life forms are present. Before that happens, there is no evolution so the theory cannot apply to anything.

[whattajoke]

True, abiogenesis is not part of the Theory of Evolution. It is, however, usually taught side-by-side with it."

You should have stopped after the first sentence. Abiogenesis is certainly not taught alongside evolutionary biology. The only place you'll typically find that is in creationist propaganda touting their viewpoint.