You basically said that although one type of reaction may proceed in the presence of light, you don't see how any number of chemical reactions could produce in the end a living system. That's the argument from personal incredulity, demonstrated when someone states disbelief in something because he doesn't understand or cannot imagine how it could be true. There's nothing particularly wrong with this. However, one's incredulity doesn't count as proof. You might not be able to imagine how a living system might arise by aggregation of various molecules and gradual modifications. However, there are a lot of people who can imagine it. Does this constitute proof on either side? Nope. The best we can do is go looking for evidence that it might be plausible or implausible. The field of "prebiotic evolution" is providing evidence that it's not so implausible as all that.
All of which is not really relevant to the theory of evolution itself. The theory of evolution concerns itself with heritable changes in the genetic material, not how the genetic material got there in the first place. Interestingly there are plenty of theistic evolutionists who believe that God made the first living cell and sent it on its way, while there are others who believe God engineered the process of abiogenesis and subsequent evolution like he engineers the weather--steering everything to produce the desired result, but typically not interfering in any way that breaks the laws of nature.
The really evil thing about the argument from incredulity is that it suggests we should not look for natural cuses.
Some anti-evolution posters phrase this as a concern for tax dollars wasted. Others fall back on the assertion that the assumption of natural causes is blasphemy.
This is the real nut of the case. The attempt to shut down inquiry. Just cheerleading for one outcome is no problem in my mind.
You seem to be blind to the statement along with it. We do observe death. That is evidence.
Rams have horns and there are horses. That does not mean I have to accept unicorns.
You appear incoherent. What is "prebiotic evolution" if is is not evolution, despite your later attempt at a distinction to another type of evolution? Your definition of implausibility seems to me, implausible.
Finally, despite your off-handed personal incredulity comment, I do understand the topic and I can imagine the complex chemical reactions. It is called life.