Later work by Sumpter and Luce and showed that even with just the base nucleotides present in the solution RNA replication could also be induced using a catalytic enzyme to produce replicating molecules. "
The basic answers here are pretty simple:
- The first plants "ate" sunlight to create energy.
- The first animals ate plants or other animals.
But the real question, as Dave Wright's recommendation of Addy Pross's book "What is Life?" (post #63) suggests is: where, exactly, do we draw the line between "complex chemistry" and "simple life"?
Notice first: it's we who are drawing lines, just as we draw lines between biological sub-species, species, genera & families, etc.
So, some natural processes we call "organic chemistry" and others we call "simple life".
We draw lines based on a more-or-less arbitrary listing of essential functions of life -- if those are all present we call it "living", if not then "chemistry".
Point is: "chemistry" can "eat" other "chemistry" without being alive, or life can eat chemistry.
As for life's origin and/or early evolution, much current scientific thinking is highly speculative, though increasingly plausible.
But such ideas are still hypotheses, not even theories, much less facts.
Interesting, though far from "settled science".
On the theological issue, if you believe as the Bible says (I do) that God created everything we can see or surmise, then there are no such things as "natural laws" because all laws of nature are God's laws, and all "natural processes" are God's processes, and so there is no practical distinction between God's creation and natural creation.
Therefore, the study of "natural science" is really the study of God's science.
So, the real miracle here is how God's Universe could create and evolve life capable of recognizing and worshiping its own Creator.
"What is Life?" Addy Pross 2012