> Molecules entangled themselves in self-sustaining, self-reproducing loops.

Now - one can derive to this conclusion, but the problem is: when you make such a statement, it is only speculation. You have to prove it. And nobody has been able to prove that statement so far.

Yes, you can prove that you have the molecules necessary, e. g. under abiotic conditions. But you need to prove it still that this relates to a system where information is stored and transmitted. Which, again, nobody has done so far.

Thus, making such a claim, even if logical (because after all you need to assume that life as such, is also logical, from a scientific point of view), you need to explain it. The article does not explain it. The article does not refer to other articles that explain it either.

> Over time, these systems became more complex.

Ok, that makes sense. Now ... HOW did these systems originate exactly? This is missing. You need to explain the bootstrapping part.

> Life invented new ways to move, and to capture, store, and use energy.

Ok this is getting worse. Now the author injects "Life" here. What is Life? Did it invent anything? How exactly?

Again - we can assume there must be a logical pathway here, if we do not believe in an invisible god writing RNA/DNA, but the article totally dodges that question.

> Through cycles of birth, reproduction, and death;

They seem to refer to a stage where a cell already existed. What about the parts before that point? It is quite easy to go from a cell to anything more complex. The foundation explanation is missing. Even in the RNA world theory.

> Then, at some point, life gained a sense of itself

Now it is getting worse.

> Scientists clashed over which type of molecule — RNA, lipids, proteins, and metabolites are prime suspects

That's not really true. Which theory claims that lipids played a major role and why? I mean, from a simple logical assumption, RNA/DNA is or must be the central part. If an author casually mentions lipids, then I wonder if that author isn't just totally clueless.

> Life’s origins are not purely a chemistry problem. “It’s not a linear reaction. … There’s no single E = mc2 and that’s origin of life’s formula,” said Betül Kaçar, an astrobiologist and evolutionary biologist

I know astrobiologists love to claim life originated from outside Earth. None of them explain how. We can always claim external reasons which can (most likely) never be proven. Or perhaps in the far distant future. I don't buy any of that. I am 100% certain that life originated on Earth, in a logical fashion. Now, the problem still is how to prove that.

> “This is biology; it doesn’t follow any rules. That’s what makes it so sophisticated and exciting.”

Ok, I stopped reading past that point. That article is total gutter trash.

Of course all what you see even on the molecular level, follows certain rules. Anyone not understanding that is not a scientist.