It seems they have an impact. Abiogenesis has fallen as a science. Getting life to sponateously arise from chemicals is akin to transmuting lead into gold. Except success is exponentially less likely.
Do you suffer the impression that you can make something true by saying it over and over? The official Tree of Life, not exactly a sideshow to biological sciences, has just been revised at its root due to mutational distance studies of the ribosomes of all the ancient microscopic families. Woese's work, upon which this revision is based, shows that prokariotes are not, in fact, the oldest lifeform. In fact, Ribosomal backvectors suggest that something way older than cellular life had to be the precursor even of thermatoga, the current longevity champ.
You are free to dislike abiogenesis, but you are not free to proclaim that it has fallen as a science without being quite properly dismissed as a delusional crank.
And you're quite free to waste your years -- or even 3*10^19 if you had them -- trying to get life to spontaneously arise from a chemical soup.