No, true.
"The theory of evolution stands independent of the origins question."
Unless you identify which biological systems you believe spontaneously generated themselves, you are committing the fallacy of exclusion.
"Here are five hypothesis regarding the origin of the first life forms."
"a) Natural processes occurring entirely upon earth resulted in chains of self-replicating molecular strands that eventually became the first life forms."
Unobserved self-replicating processes possible for generating life are not observed. Despite years of work and millions of dollars. You are invoking the 'god of the gaps' argument in naturalistic zap-poof form. Strike one.
"b) Aliens from another planet and/or dimension traveled to this planet and -- deliberately or accidentally -- seeded the planet with the first life forms."
Same mistake Dawkins made in his interview with Ben Stein. Begging the question by assuming that the impossible occurred zap-poof somewhere unobservable. Strike two.
"c) In the future, humans will develop a means to travel back in time. They will use this technology to plant the first life forms in Earth's past, making the existence of life a causality loop."
Same zap-poof error as the 'God of the gaps' in naturalistic form again. Strike three.
"d) A divine agent of unspecified nature zap-poofed the first life forms into existence."
The zap-poof 'god of the gaps' argument. Strike four.
e) Any method other than the four described above led to the existence of the first life forms.
Invoking the 'god of the gaps' argument in naturalistic zap-poof form. Strike five.
"The theory of evolution works just fine with any of those. It is only creationists who try to dishonestly link the theory of evolution with the fledgling field researching origins.
The theory of evolution is only excluded from the supernatural origins scenario. It is assumed in all the other zap-poof scenarios, none of which has anything to offer anyone but the credulists. It is only evolutionists who try to dishonestly separate the 'theory of evolution' from abiogenesis who commit the fallacy of exclusion.
The definitions of "fallacy of exclusion" I find contain this statement:
Note that it is not sufficient simply to show that not all of the evidence was included; it must be shown that the missing evidence is relevant to the conclusion.You have not shown that information about where the first life forms came from is relevant to what happened after that. (Insisting is not showing.)