This is intellectually insulting. Of course there were some abiotic chemicals on Earth, elements for life are distributed through out the universe, and some do chemically react and combine, but only what is possible based on influent energy levels (unregulated and just as prone to assist as destroy) and entropy. The simple amino acids and sugars found are so minor relative to the extreme complexity of even the simplest life that this does not justify the hyped up article titles. The supposed evolution of chemical complexity is a myth of chemical evolution like Darwin's "warm little ponds" or Oparin Haldane primordial soup. It is faith-based ideology to speculate that any Darwinian processes would be relevant before life even began, but such is the level of escalating desperation within naturalism to resolve even the most minor aspect of the intractable processes within the chaotic mess of naturalistic hypotheses regarding the origin of life.
And yet we know that at one stage there was no life, but now there is. So it arose somehow. The job of science is to seek natural mechanisms by which this could have taken place.
It is idle to argue, on a science forum, that it was impossible without supernatural agency, since such a hypothesis is ipso facto an unscientific one. Supernatural explanations have no place in science. They never have had, since the dawn of modern science at the Renaissance.
What you interpret as "escalating desperation" is merely the excitement felt by scientists who feel they are making progress, albeit slowly, towards a better understanding of how abiogenesis occurred.
Whether you like it or not, science will go on researching this fascinating topic.
As for the thread being "intellectually insulting", the only thing insulting to the scientific intellect on this thread is your contribution. I suggest you find another forum. This is a science forum, after all.
Edited by exchemist, 12 January 2018 - 02:34 AM.