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.
---------------------------------------------------------
Clarification of what the Foundation is looking for. We are primarily interested in how certain linear digital sequences of monomers acquired three-dimensional dynamic function. The Prize offer is designed to stimulate focused research on the origin of initial genetic instructions themselves. So much of life origin work centers around biochemical factors. But biopolymers catalyzed by clay surfaces, for example, do not necessarily contain any functional (prescriptive) information. How does an algorithmically complex sequence of codons arise in nature which finds phenotypic usefulness only after translation into a completely different language (AA sequence)? How did natural process produce so indirectly the hundreds of needed three-dimensional protein catalysts for life to begin?
Mathematically, it is impossible to go backwards from 20 AA to 64 codons. There is no way to know which of four or six codons, for example, coded a given AA when one tries to go backwards against the "Central Dogma." Prescriptive Information has been lost. Various models of code origin often pursue primordial codon systems of only two nitrogen bases rather than three. At some point, such a two-base codon system must evolve into a three-base codon system. But catastrophic problems such as global frame shifts would have resulted from such a change midstream in the evolution of genetic code.
Environmental selection, if existent at all in a prebiotic environment, is nothing more than after-the-fact differential survivability/reproduction of certain stochastic ensembles in certain environments. How did initial genetic code-certain sequences of codons-come to specify only certain three-dimensional sequences of amino acid strings that "work"?
The winning submission will likely provide both a novel and cardinal conceptual contribution to current biological science and information theory.
The Foundation welcomes theoretical models of a more direct primordial instruction system (one that might have preceded codon transcription and translation) provided the model provides explanation of continuous transition (abiding by the "continuity principle") to current prokaryotic and eukaryotic empirical life.
Inanimate stepping stones of abiotic evolution are essential components to any natural process theory of the molecular evolution of life. Full reign must be given to the exploration of spontaneously forming complexity and to self-ordering inanimate systems. But reductionistic attempts to provide models of life development must not sacrifice the very property of "life" that biology seeks to explain. Coacervates, micelles, vesicles, and various primordial quasimembrane models, for example, may resemble membrane equivalents and merit considerable ongoing research, but should not be confused with the active transport membranes of the simplest known free-living organisms.
-----------------------------------------------------------
But the theory of evolution is NOT contingent upon the answer to that question. That's the point. Hydrology isn't contingent upon where water came from; gravitation isn't contingent upon where matter came from. They are all compatible with ANY explanation of how the raw materials got here.