Planetary scientists have figured out that the geysers of Enceladus vary during its orbit, but seem oddly silent about the question of how long the little moon could remain so active.
Anything "could" happen. Shouldn't science deal with what does happen and what did happen? The "could" word is rampant in astrobiology literature and origin-of-life studies.
Why aren't philosophers of science shaming origin-of-life researchers out of the science department? OOL theories depend on imagination, not empirical evidence, for their broad-brush conclusions.
For professionals who should be concerned with evidence, many evolutionists are given to rampant speculation. The tipoff is usually a phrase like "may have," "could have," or "conceivably."