No, I had it correct.<quoted text>
You've got it backwards. Darwinian evolution predicts abiogenesis. It doesn't rely on it - though, only abiogenesis makes sense from the perspective of our contemporary sciences.
Who cares if Darwin say so? He is 160 years out of date now. He said quite a few things that are no longer considered correct. Only his basic premise still holds. His genius lay in revealing evolution, not in working out the details we have at our hands now.
Your last point is meaningless. It doesn't add weight to any argument you might put forth except "we don't know how life started, but we have some good hypotheses we're testing."
Current evolutionary theory relies inextricably on abiogenesis.
You admitted so yourself - you just didn't know it, when you said, "only abiogenesis makes sense from the perspective of our contemporary sciences"
You could have just as correctly worded your statement "ONLY ABIOGENESIS makes sense with our contemporary evolution theory".
So then, what if abiogenesis does not make sense, i.e., is not true? What happens to the paradigm without it?
The Darwinian paradigm collapses and must be reconstructed because ANY ALTERNATIVE TO ABIOGENESIS REQUIRES EXTERNAL AGENCY.
Thus and then, it can no longer be assumed that random variation and natural selection is the sole mechanism of biologic diversity.
Also, out goes the assumption of universal common descent. Out goes the assumption, even, that life evolved through orderly sequence, instead of multiple life forms arising at different times. Out goes the assumption that multicellular organisms arose from unicellular organisms. Out goes the assumption that life arose in its most simple form and progressed ALWAYS to more complex.
Abiogenesis is inextricably linked with the large-scale views of evolutionary theory.
It was so in Darwin's day; it is so now. Darwin was greatly distressed by this, and so began the tricky campaign in science for bifurcating the two concepts.
It works very well, at least among the non-skeptical.