When a detective arrives at the scene of a crime how does he proceed? Would he not look for clues like: Who was the murder victim? when was the murder done? how was it done? if a weapon was used, what type ? and where did it come from?. If forensics and the rest of the team find that a suspect knew the victim, was last seen with him, and owned and was an expert with the type of weapon used, would we not say that progress is being made and that a lead suspect has been found? It the absence of positive evidence otherwise should not the investigation focus on him?
It is a fact that today DNA evidence positively links modern species as having arisen from common decent. It is a fact that fossil evidence reveals species that no longer exist and that these appear morphologically as credible ancesteral forms of modern species. It is a fact that speciation is happening today and is observed. It is a fact that there are nonliving self replicating molecules that have a relationship with moderns living things. It's a fact that there are forms of life that defy clasification because of extreme simplicity and unusual methods of replication. All the evidence is consistent with some type of ambiogenesis and subsequent evolution. In that lack of positive evidence otherwise, should not science focus on refining those hypotheses?