Why Hawaii's volcano is so UNUSUAL

Origin of life "science" is actually a pseudoscience that denies real chemistry. Change my mind (or refute me If you can). The "chemical evolution" hypothesis of Oparin doesn't make any chemical sense. The first living cell, with a minimum of 256 protein-coding genes, ATP production capacity, filled with complex molecular machinery, and self-replicating, could not have formed spontaneously according to our current knowledge. For life 4 classes of compounds are needed: proteins, carbohydrates, lipids and nucleotides, we don't know how to synthesize any of those in prebiotic-like conditions. What we know is that in order to synthesize then, a series of intermediate steps are necessary, and that these intermediate products (and final products) are frequently unstable to air, light, water..., (the peptide bonds of proteins, for example, rapidly undergo hydrolysis in water), which means that time is a not a good argument in favor of abiogenesis, the whole process would have to occur very rapidly. Also, life compounds are homochiral, but random reactions produce racemic mixtures (for example, the aminoacids produced by Urey-Miller are racemic, while life's proteins are made (almost exclusevily) of l-aminoacids), and that is a huge problem in terms of chemical synthesis. Also, the proposed reactions for the prebiotic synthesis of nucleotides are thermodynamically unfavourable, meaning they do not occur spontaneously. And that is only the beginning of the problem, even If we had all the molecules, we have no idea how to build a cell. All the nanotechnology that we have developed so far looks like "childplay" in comparison with the "simplest" cell. In summary, from the point of view of the chemical sciences, origin of life remains a total mistery.  https://youtu.be/zU7Lww-sBPg

https://inference-review.com/article/animadversions-of-a-synthetic-chemist

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Synthetic-routes-of-the-fundamental-building-blocks-of-life