Now that you have the obligatory insult laid at my feet....you may presume that I have some knowledge in the area of chemistry. But you may also assume I am ignorant in many areas...of that I plead guilty.
Let me go back to the post I was answering. You said, Please explain how a solute containing Carbon, Oxygen, Nitrogen, and hydrogen will spontaneously large quantities of organic molecules according to physical laws. That is not a question I would expect to see from someone who has a basic knowledge of chemistry. No one who has studied chemistry would ever question the fact that chemical reactions proceed spontaneously. And so, when I remarked that it would be easier to answer if you had some knowledge of chemistry, I meant exactly that, no insult intended. It can be incredibly difficult to explain highly technical matters to someone who doesn't have the background.
We will bypass the fundamentals on covalent bonds, ionic bonds, electrovalent bonding, and nucleosynthesis. Presume I have a working knowledge there.
Do you know that ionic bonding = electrovalent bonding? Chemists, at least in the U.S., use the term "ionic" bonding almost exclusively; I have never heard the term "electrovalent" used.
Then you hand off the ball to the physists as to the origin of Hydrogen, helium (not mentioned) and subatomic particles which must have existed very early on in that event which you referenced as the Big bang. The fundamental question which I originally asked was,....As we know, and you affirm an origin to the universe (hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc), and given that science does not deny, yes, it affirms that the universe came to be from nothing, (the eternity of the universe has thoroughly been scientifically dismissed-(see Borde, Guth, Vilkin) please account for the Cause of the big bang. Everything which comes to be has a cause....the universe came to be....therefore the universe had a Cause.
Actually, whether the universe is eternal or it sprang into being from some means (the big bang?), is really irrelevant to the process of evolution. Chemistry acts according to physical law in either case, and chemical reactions form the basis of the evolutionary process as we scientists observe it within the course of our everyday work.
Therefore you say these early organisms were anaerobes. I will assume you will agree with this. Do anaerobes give off elemental O2 as a byproduct of their physiological process (For now I will not ask you where and how the enzyme process survived an atmosphere in which was highly reduced.) So how did they respire? BUT, before you answer that question how did this 'primitive life' come to be?
Of course the early organisms were anaerobes; that's what the fossil record indicates from billions of years ago. No, they did not produce free O2; O2 is not a product of respiration. Early organisms, like modern anaerobic organisms, used atoms/molecules other than O2 as the final electron acceptor in the respirative process. Instead of generating energy through the citric acid cycle, they used various fermentation pathways. Finally, the enzymes of anaerobes are adapted to the anaerobic environment, just as the enzymes of aerobes or facultative anaerobes are adapted to oxidizing environments. Since proteins can have many different chemical characteristics, organisms can adapt to an incredible variety of environments.
As for how primitive life came to be, I believe there are hypotheses about the form of that life, but no one has definitively answered that question yet. The answer to that question doesn't affect what we know about evolution in any case, because evolution concerns the mechanisms of how species change over time and doesn't really address how all life began.
You may not believe that the question of origin is relevant or not, but many believe it is the most important question. Einstein, Eddington, Hoyl, Hubble...all felt the question regarding a beginning was important. So when you say,"Whether the universe is eternal....", seems to indicate that you leave open that possibility. The Kaalam Cosmological argument posits that if the universe is eternal then an infinite number of past days (time) must have been....but, tomorrow another day will be added to the infinite number of days...BUT, nothing can be added to the infinite. So philosophically and logically it does not make sense that the universe is eternal.
As regarding the relevance of 'a beginning' or 'an eternal' universe, it seems to me there is great relevance. Many ethical questions flow from the view that the universe is created or eternal. Even Sagan, atheist, said we (humans) have a duty to our originator. He, of course, said the cosmos (which he spelled Cosomos) was our originator, and thus, we have inherent obligations to the cosmos. Another atheistic thinker, German Frederich Nietzsche said we have killed God, that God is dead,..how shall we then comfort ourselves? Must we now become gods ourselves. For when God died all absolutes died with Him...no moral lawgiver, no prescribed right or wrong. Or Fyodor Dostoevsky, who said, now that God is dead all things are permitted.
So, as I say, from origins flow ethical ideas which command the day. I will stop there. But if you are interested you might look at the Argument For God from the Argument from Consiousness, The Cosmological Argument, The Moral Argument, The Ontologcical Argument, The Metaphysical Argument, The Argument from Reason, and there are many others.
Regarding your comment that Chemistry acts according to physical laws and chemical reactions form the basis of evolution, I would like you to consider how dead, brute chemical gave rise to consciousness, thought, any mental event. Chemicals don't think, they react.
As to the lack of connectivity of how life came to be, being apart from life evolving, it seems that is the first and most pivotal step in evolution. To dismiss it seems convenient and self-serving to the atheist. To foister it off on a nebular 'hypothesis' is to say I will have faith in one of those hypothesis,...but faith is the order of that statement. Then to appleal to that last word of that sentence, 'yet' puts the final stamp of approval of faith in the scientific magestestrate. We have no idea of lifes' ontology or epistemology, but science will bring us through.
I suppose we could speak to Krebs cycly, the cytochrome P-450 systems, but we need to regress to a point prior to those systems 'evolving'. Where and how did the enzymes (very large, specific, complex molecules with specific spatial configurations) come to be? That is more interesting than reading Leninger or Whites Biochemistry books. Where and how did the first substrates arise to be acted upon by those enzymes? And how could the estimated 350 (minimum) enzyme systems needed for the most primitive cell arise denovo and concurrently to allow for protein construction, energy production, energy consumption, etc. We cannot even produce proof of that first system. Yes, we observe it now. We measure its effects now....but ontologically and epistemically how did those systems arise?
So the supreme question remains, how did first life arise? I think it is extremely relevant to today.