Summations Only

Something of relevance to this came up in Topic: Can the creationist model explain the data? Message 66Both University of Michigan and University of Berkley list Abiogenesis and Universal Common Ancestry as foundational assumptions of the Theory of Evolution.While Kerkut says "spontaneous generation occurred only once" others such as Dobzhansky say that "It is also possible that there were several, or even many, origins of life; if so, the progeny of only one of them has survived and inherited the earth" Both result in Universal Common Ancestry.So as far as I can see Kerkut's assumptions are bog standard evolutionist beliefs.Edited by CRR, : Forum reference updated

Follow the links.

So at Message 918 you said My reply at Message 931 addressed ONLY (1) and (2) which you said were not premises of the ToE
Assumption (1) is ABIOGENESIS and assumption (2) results in UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTRY.From University of Michigan we get;
"Darwin’s theory of evolution entails the following fundamental ideas.
All organisms share common ancestors with other organisms. Over time, populations may divide into different species, which share a common ancestral population. Far enough back in time, any pair of organisms shares a common ancestor."
UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTRYFollowing the link on that page to lecture on speciation we find
"Life has evolved from non-life, and complex organisms from simpler forms."
ABIOGENESISFrom Berkley we get;
Universal Common Ancestry, Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.
Abiogenesis, they include as an event in Important events in the history of life, Unicellular life evolves. So according to Berkley and Michigan all life evolved from a common microbial ancestor that arose naturally from non-living matter.From Dobzhansky
"They suggest that life arose from inanimate matter only once and that all organisms, no matter how diverse in other respects, conserve the basic features of the primordial life. (It is also possible that there were several, or even many, origins of life; if so, the progeny of only one of them has survived and inherited the earth.) "
ABIOGENESIS and UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTRYFrom Jerry Coyne in Why Evolution is True, 2009
"Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive speciesperhaps a self-replicating moleculethat lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection." [Jerry Coyne, 2009]
ABIOGENESIS (perhaps a self replicating molecule) and UNIVERSAL COMMON ANCESTRYThis is what Universities teach. This is what evolutionists Kerkut, Dobzhansky, and Coyne say. The precise wording changes with the different sources but the intent is clear.
So these are indeed assumptions of the ToE and as far as I can see Kerkut's assumptions are bog standard evolutionist beliefs.

That possibility is covered in the quote from Dobzhansky.

Dead matter can't produce life.
Humans can't produce life from dead matter.
God can produce life from dead matter.

OK I can live with that criticism. So we can say then that the theory of evolution entails abiogenesis and universal common ancestry; and I can leave it to you as to whether these are necessary or inevitable parts or consequences.

OK, here it is;
"They suggest that life arose from inanimate matter only once and that all organisms, no matter how diverse in other respects, conserve the basic features of the primordial life. (It is also possible that there were several, or even many, origins of life; if so, the progeny of only one of them has survived and inherited the earth.) "
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense except in the Light of Evolution, Theodosius Dobzhanskyexactly as quoted in Message 958

But if you say it happened without any intelligent input that's science.

For Charles Darwin it appears that common ancestry was the assumption for which natural selection provided an explanation.Erasmus Darwin’s view of evolution comes rather close to his more famous grandson’s. In his 1794 book Zoonomia, Erasmus Darwin appears to suggest it’s possible that all warm-blooded animals have a common origin.*In Charles Darwin’s time, some British scientists, including Robert Edmond Grant and Charles Lyell, while rejecting Lamarckism, began to believe all lifeforms had the capacity to transform into other species. They noted that the geologic record appeared to show a progression of lifeforms. Robert Edmond Grant — who had taught Darwin at the University of Edinburgh — even proposed a common origin for plants and animals, as Darwin’s grandfather had. However, neither Grant nor Lyell could propose a coherent mechanism for the transformation of species.*In 1835 Edward Blyth clearly described how breeders use artificial selection to produce domestic animals to meet specific requirements. He also described how in nature animals appear with slight variations. He identified that the process we now call natural selection would operate on the variations. However, he didn’t notice that this could lead to the formation of new species. In fact, he believed the opposite was true.*By 1839 Charles Darwin had begun to formulate his theory of evolution by natural selection inspired by existing ideas of common ancestry from Lyell and Grant, with the ideas of scarcity from Malthus and natural selection from Blythe.*In 1844 of a book entitled Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation suggested the solar system had formed naturally from a nebula and that life had been spontaneously generated on the earth. The lowly forms of life had then evolved into higher forms, including man.*On July 1, 1858, a joint paper was read to the Linnean Society. The authors were Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. The paper told the world of their theory which came to be known as evolution by natural selection.*The following year, Darwin released his historic book On The Origin of Species with large amounts of evidence supporting the new theory.*While the book presents the evidence for natural selection first leading up to common ancestry it is likely the ideas came to Darwin in the opposite order; common ancestry first, then selection as the mechanism. E.g. see Elliot Sober, Did Darwin write the Origin backwards? Just a moment...
* Just a moment...Today the idea of common ancestry is widespread and most children know it at least in some form before they go to school, so it is for them a prior assumption even if they are taught natural selection first.However as Dredge says it probably makes little difference since both ideas are integral to the modern version of Darwin's theory.Edited by CRR, : No reason given.

No, it's A hypothesis. It would only be "an" if the "h" is silent, as in "an 'ypothesis". A link to a whole thread is not very specific. Specifically, which do you think is the best example of a self replicating molecule?

Well when I look back over the contradictory advice on diet over the years I would conclude that science is often wrong. Even when wrong there has usually been a consensus. "Eggs are bad for you, don't eat more than 2 a week". "No, eggs are good for you, eat often".

I'd like a reference for that please. Not quite. In your example something that IS alive is consuming non living matter and incorporating it into its body. At best life is creating life. This is entirely different to abiogenesis; dead matter creating life from dead matter.Edited by CRR, : expanded

B results in A; We see A so B could be a cause. However C and D could also be causes. You need to use inference to the best explanation. Part of that is asking how other evidence is best explained.How about an example? We see fossils in the rocks (A).
Evolution over millions of years (B) could result in fossils. A catastrophic worldwide flood (C) could result in fossils.
What else B would leave behind? If evolution takes place by innumerable small steps then despite its extreme imperfection we should see some clear cases of slow transition from one form to another. However if C is true we would expect the fossil record to show distinct gaps between forms as a general rule.
The fossil record shows only a few questionable transitions. The fossil record generally shows distinct gaps between forms.
Therefore C is a better explanation than B. The best explanation is that the fossils were left by a catastrophic worldwide flood.

Good, then you'll have no trouble picking one.Please give an example that is not behind a paywall.

The Cambrian Explosion is a single occurrence that took millions of years. (Speaking in terms of an old Earth view) Similarly the occurrence of life could have taken millions of years with only one winner, as Dobzhansky says. The consequence is that all living things today have come from a last universal common ancestor. That at least is the consensus opinion of evolutionists today.What if we do find a life form that could not have arisen from that ancestor? Not much really. Evolutionists would just say that there were at least two survivors from that initial origin of life. Creationists already believe in separate creation of different kinds.