That's not a question for an evolutionary biologist, is it?
This is the same old worn-out rhetoric we repeatedly see from the anti-science know-nothings: that Evolution is bunk because it doesn't explain the origin of the raw materials (first living cells).
This is equivalent to standing on a soap-box and screaming that Hydrology is bunk because it doesn't explain the origin of water, or that Gravitational Theory is bunk because it doesn't explain the origin of mass.
"Hydrology -- a theory in crisis!"
No it's not like that at all.
Gravitational Theory and Hydrology really don't include the phenomenon of change, but the phenomenon of change is the core of evolutional theory. Since the phenomenon of change is at the very core of evolutionary theory it begs the question, exactly when and how did evolution start?
Evolutionists should not blow off that question as they normally do with "the same old worn-out rhetoric we repeatedly see" like, "you do not have the proper understanding of evolution", "evolution is not meant to explain the origin of raw materials" etc.
This is what makes the The Origin of Life Prize® so interesting, there are some honest evolutionists who know the origin of life question has to be answered and that so far they have no answers.
"Hydrology -- a theory in crisis!"
Good 'un, ls.