From which you desire to call self replicating RNA molecules as being alive according to your definition. To do this you have to ignore cell theory totally, and there is no good reason to do that.
Is there some reason Cell Theory precludes a self-replicating RNA, subject to copy error, resulting in new capabilities, subject to environmental stress and natural selection, does something in Cell Theory preclude this from a definition of "life"?
Today Cell Theory is a given since the cell is fait accompli and a part of all life. But what about prior? How would Cell Theory negate RNA World or Cairns-Smith or PHA World?
According to Evo theory life began (cellular Life) about 3.5B years ago.
No. Theory of Evolution does not posit how or when life originated. TOE says what happened to that life once it was here and how we ended up with so much variation. That is all. Once we have a viable, evidenced, theory of origin then it will be incorporated our theory of life and evolution. But we don't have one yet. We only have the theory of evolution.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.