Hence the Theory of Evolution has to include the assertion that the first replicators formed, without design, from un-designed precursors.

Fair enough. And, in your preferred version of it, it does indeed include that assertion. I even believe that assertion.

However, its explanation of how this actually happened - of how the first replicators formed, without design, from un-designed precursors - remains somewhat lacking. Details can, and no doubt will, be filled in to make that explanation more satisfying. At present it is not, not very.

That's all I'm saying.

That, and the fact that this should be acknowledged, explicitly, when presenting the theory of evolution to someone. It is a property of the theory of evolution, at present, that its explanation of origins is relatively un-fleshed-out. Is it not?

those first replicators were formed by variation, followed by natural selection, starting with a population of non-replicator precursors.

Probably. And I see what you're saying about that explanation - pending a filling in of the details - fitting into the rubric of evolution-proper, i.e. variation & change. It's not clear, at present, how exactly this part of evolution happened, however. At least, it's far, far less clear than how the remainder of evolution happened, which is rather obvious and ought to be completely uncontroversial.

The origin explanation is currently the weakest link in the theory of evolution, in other words. And if you simply acknowledge that, you instantaneously and effortlessly defuse any attacks on "evolution" overall that are based solely on pointing to that weak link. By emphasizing that different aspects of evolution are established to different degrees (or adopting my preference, and saying that it is *two* theories, "evolution" and "origins"), you prevent people from being able to use evolution's weak link against it. Which is my only aim here.

Is this really not making sense or what?