AdminPaul has properly ruled this off-topic, but I think I can reply to this and keep it on-topic:
The reason I pursue evolution being considered outside earth, is whther to define it for what it is. If it is limited to this planet, then it means a factor not seen elsewhere is responsible for its occurence here, and it is better defined as a premise unique to earth. And the 'why' question becomes relevent. Usually, the discussion is always focused on the workings of evolution, as opposed to the premise base itself.
Having not read this thread I'm not aware of the definitions of evolution that have been proposed, but one common definition is the change in allele frequency in a population over time. The creation of new alleles, the death of existing alleles, the remixing of alleles, is not dependent upon any special conditions unique to Earth. Any life anywhere that reproduces imperfectly will follow the principles of the theory of evolution, and even sexual species with perfect reproduction would evolve, although of course no new alleles could ever be introduced (although now that I think of it, even with perfect reproduction, radiation and cosmic rays could still cause mutations, so evolution would still occur, but very slowly).
PS - Google and Firefox both provide spellchecking.
I trust it is reasonable to ask, in this narrow knife edge portrayal about defining the evolution thery, how the seed of a host fits in with darwin's theories?
I can only echo what others have said: I have no idea what you're talking about.
The theory of evolution is often referred to as the modern synthesis. That's because it's a synthesis, a combining if you will, of the science of genetics with Darwin's theory of natural selection and descent with modification. Once you get deeper into the details you can define the theory of evolution in many acceptable ways, but they'll all be consistent with the modern synthesis. And the principles and processes included and/or inferred by the modern synthesis are consistent with all known physical laws throughout the universe and so hold true everywhere.
You obviously have some image in your mind involving "hosts" and "seeds" that seems to you like a problem for evolution, but this thread isn't for discussing problems with evolution. It's for working toward a mutually agreeable definition of evolution. Once agreement is reached you can start a new thread and tear evolution as so defined apart, you can even do that now preemptively if you wish, but if you're not going to help hone this definition then get off the thread.
I think you should reread Message 1, because you're going off in unintended directions. RAZD is seeking a consensus on the definition of the modern theory of evolution. Invalidated or incomplete theories from the past, such as Lamarckism or orthogenesis or nomogenesis or even Darwin's original formulation, aren't the focus of this thread.
There is no reason for presupposition that Theory of Evolution = Modern synthesis.
The synthetic theory of evolution, also known as the modern synthesis, arose around the 1920's when the population geneticists demonstrated that Darwin's formulation of evolution as natural selection upon a varied population with imperfect reproduction was precisely what emerged from their genetic models. This brought together the then separate theories of genetics and evolution into a single theory now called the modern synthesis.
Predictable right at the outset. Brevity and precision are opposites, and consensus developed by committee generate the worst possible outcomes as people earnestly work toward incorporating everyone's ideas. But it's a great learning exercise as one often discovers that the topic about which one thought there could be little disagreement among competent individuals actually includes a wide diversity of opinion.