These are the assumptions and the preconditions of the Evolutionary theory. Without valid assumptions the theory cannot exists ...
There is no assumption that vegetables evolved from mustard plants.
Without valid assumptions the theory cannot exists
Without sufficient evidence you cannot have a scientific theory. A theory is the best explanation of the evidence to which the evidence itself dictates. Such as Broccoli evolving from a mustard plant, or the genetics and forensic evidence.. Your argument is like saying we can't tell a murder happened based on the forensic evidence, or how it happened. Sorry, when we have the evidence, we can forego "assumptions".
If you cannot explain how and why the green algae appear on a planet without any biosphere,
Are we supposed to? Where in evolutionary science does it claim that algae appear on a planet without an Atmosphere? Do please make a citation because that is not what evolution is about.. I swear you are seriously intellectually challenged or entirely inept if you can't comprehend that evolutionary synthesis is only to explain how life has and is evolving. You know, like total and complete genome duplication in sterile flower that gave birth to an entirely new species we know as the Monkey Flower.
with concentration of CO2 in the air of 7000
Earth's atmosphere, including CO2 came large in part from the Earth cooling down, and due to out-gassing from geological processes. You can see this happening to this very day. This evidence is in the very rock layers themselves... Hence yes, we have a very good idea of what Earth's early conditions were. And maybe you can go visit a volcano or deep sea vent sometime to cure yourself of your ignorance.
with concentration of CO2 in the air of 7000 ppm and how they succeeded to reduce that down to 150 ppm in this way turning the planet into ideal place for creation/evolution/assembling/installing/conception (or whatever the process there might be) of biosphere we cannot explain actually anything.
Though this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, CO2 is harmful to some living things and not to others. Earth's primary form of life billions of years ago was microbes. The question you are trying to ask here is how did life begin under Early Earth conditions. That is abiogenesis, and that is still under investigation even though we have several processes under consideration for which that could have happened. This unknown does not in anyway invalidate evolutionary theory.
if it is designed & installed the hypotheses of the theory will look very much different, don't you think?
No.. It actually is irrelevant how life began here. Hence it doesn't matter if you believe life was installed or emerged from natural processes. The answer to that question has nothing to do with out the diversity of life came to be. Dogs didn't magically appear or get created by magic elves. They evolved from wolves, and thus increased the diversity of life. Broccoli from mustard plant is an increase in the diversity of life. Gene duplication also is observed to increase the diversity of life. Changes in the Phenotype results in the increase of the diversity of life. Single celled algae to multi-cellular algae is the increase of the diversity of life.. This is evolution, and it's been observed.
Both the Evolution theory and the Big Bang theory never succeeded to find some valid assumptions for themselves and at some stage of 'their development' they both start claiming that they don't need any assumptions and any validation at all ... and this is 'their main advantage'.
Nor can anything reliant on cognition since cognitive systems are also governed by the very same natural laws... News flash, sentience is an emergent property in itself from natural processes. If you want the simple answer to causality, it is Existence itself to which is Causality. Existence is a self-generating system from itself to which we, and any other living or sentient animal, thing, or being are products of. Existence is a complex adaptive system in which is self-organizing through system feedback.
So before you go on about how life can't spontaneously emerge, or can't evolve without design because you feel they are complex, you let me know when you can describe for me how a cognitive system can function and support a conscious state without applying the same principles in which evolution and life require to exist, form, and function. Such as the inertia of a system and information...., such as the processing of information with feedback.. I don't think you realize how self-refuting your argument is.
So as they say, the Universe is so fine tuned for life, but yet so it is so for the support, function, emergence, and existence of Conscious being. One cannot create the system itself requires to exist, or the system in which one's self is a product of. To wit, you can't have a conscious existence at T-O, the state of a system in which there is no inertia. Let that sink into your head a bit.