Has it occured to you that the fact that absolutely no scientific paper on evolution addresses the origin of life might actually be because evolution does not address the origin of life and it is not because we are lying about the actual scope of evolution?
What has occurred to me is that evolution is mathmatically impossible. Hence my example in post 664. To accept the theory that a species could evolve along certain paths, leaving the original species intact in the present day is to accept sheer lunacy.
If you really think that evolution requires an explanation for the origin of life, then it is up to you to explain exactly how the theory of evolution is falsified if the allegedly requisite method for the origin of life were to be proven impossible.
The reason evolution requires an explanation of the origins of life is because the evolutionist has to prove that the first simple single cell was able to write within its genetic structure a very complex set of instructions with all of the cellular codes for every living thing would evolve from it. And that is, as you well know, is impossible.
The best an evolutionist can do when confronted regarding the origins of life is ignore the beginning of life as if it doesn't matter, and try to shift the argument to somewhere near the middle.