Both of you have mentioned abiogenesis and differentiated it from evolution.
This sure sounds like evolution:
"those molecules which were protected from the elements survived longer and reproduced more."
"One theory goes like this:RNA, the compliment molecule to DNA, was the first to evolve naturally from materials already common in the pre-biotic Earth. Self-replication was achieved through catalytic actions in RNA-based molecules, called ribosomes, or possibly through an intermediary molecule.
This step still remains unverified to science as of this writing."
{ and after that miracle }
"Once self-replication had been achieved, the forces of Natural Selection took over. For example, those molecules which were protected from the elements survived longer and reproduced more. So, any molecules which found themselves with a lipid bubble (which also forms naturally) would have a better chance of reproducing. After many incremental steps, the lipid bubbles eventually became cell membranes, and the molecules DNA.
For more information on the probability of life forming this way, please see this article."
http://evolutionfaq.com/faq/how-could-dna-have-evolved
Not only that, but we can't even create life on purpose in a lab.
This entire line of thinking is a whacky as a three year old digging a hole to China with their plastic shovel in a sandbox.
Take a step back from what you assume is reasonable and ask yourself, if it is actually reasonable. Because to those already stepped back and looking it looks embarrassingly stupid.