@cofty just being devils advocate here but just as an example.
The following is from an excerpt from pbs.org. It's listed under "Evolution, How Did Life Begin". Saying a catalyst event is in no way relevant to evolution is a bit of an oxymoron to me. Without the starting point of amino acids, proteins, single cell orgs etc. there's no evolution to talk about. We wouldn't be here according to evolutionists. To me common sense says you need the catalyst event, as without it discussing evolution is a moot point.
Although I believe you can have a conversation about evolution without this start event, evolution requires a start event (whatever flavor you wish to believe) for it to be possible. That of course is unless you believe evolution has always existed! Problem there is evolutionists believe the earth is roughly 4 billion years old. If it had a start then so did evolution. What is the catalyst then?
In a nutshell, what is the process? How does life form?
The short answer is we don't really know how life originated on this planet. There have been a variety of experiments that tell us some possible roads, but we remain in substantial ignorance. That said, I think what we're looking for is some kind of molecule that is simple enough that it can be made by physical processes on the young Earth, yet complicated enough that it can take charge of making more of itself. That, I think, is the moment when we cross that great divide and start moving toward something that most people would recognize as living.