What other reasons are there to believe that abiogenesis preventing oxygen was in the Archean atmosphere?

Question

Now it is believed that the early prebiotic atmosphere of earth was probably O2-rich with some nitrogen, a less reactive mixture than Miller’s, with larger amounts of carbon dioxide, which would greatly deter the development of organic compounds!
A major source of gases was believed to be volcanoes, and since modern-day volcanoes emit CO, CO2, N2 and water vapour, it was considered likely that these gases were very abundant in the early atmosphere. In contrast, it is now believed that H2, CH4 and NH3 probably were not major components of the early atmosphere, as Dr. Stanley Miller had used in his well known experiment. Furthermore, many scientists now believe that the early atmosphere probably did not play a major role in the chemical reactions leading to life.
Although the composition of the atmosphere of the early earth is now believed to have consisted of large amounts of carbon dioxide. The oxygen we need to live KILLS abiogenesis!!!

Answer 1

Knowledge of the atmospheric composition and surface temperature throughout the Archean (2.5 – 4.0 Ga) is essential for understanding the origin and early evolution of life on Earth. Two factors should have inevitably affected
the Archean environment — reduced solar luminosity and reduced levels of oxygen.
Since Earth appears to have been warm during its early history despite reduced solar luminosity («faint young Sun paradox»), atmospheric greenhouse effect should have been much higher. Although increased CO2 abundance can
provide sufficient warming, constraints on atmospheric CO2 derived from the ancient soils suggest that an additional greenhouse gas (methane) should have been present in significant amounts. We have used one-dimensional radiativeconvective climate model to simulate Earth early atmosphere. We found that 100 – 1000 ppm of methane is enough to offset reduced solar luminosity and keep the
Earth surface warm. However, such a high CH4 concentration could have been maintained by ancient biota (methanogenic bacteria) only in the reducing (anoxic)
Archean atmosphere.
How high were oxygen levels in the Archean atmosphere remained a controversy for decades. Numerous geologic evidence for the oxygen rise event at ~2.3 Ga allowed an alternative interpretation and could not provide a quantitative
constraint on how high oxygen levels should have been before and after the transition. However, recently, Farquhar et al. presented an evidence of massindependent
fractionation (MIF) in sulfur isotopes. MIF has been reported in sediments of Archean and Early Proterozoic Age (> 2.3 Ga) but not in younger rocks.
A one-dimensional photochemical model has been used to investigate how the isotopic fractionation produced during SO2 photolysis would have been transferred to other gaseous and particulate sulfur-bearing species in both low-
O2 and high-O2 atmospheres. We show that in atmospheres with O2 concentrations <10-5 times the present atmospheric level (PAL), sulfur would have been removed from the atmosphere in a variety of different oxidation states, each of which would have had its own distinct isotopic signature. By contrast, in atmospheres with O2 6 concentrations 10-5 PAL, all sulfur-bearing species would have passed through
the oceanic sulfate reservoir before being incorporated into sediments, so any
signature of MIF would have been lost. We conclude that the atmospheric O2 concentration must have been below 10-5 PAL prior to 2.3 Ga.
Therefore discovery of MIF in sulfur isotopes in the Archean rocks strongly supports our hypothesis of the anoxic methane-rich Archean atmosphere.

Answer 2

It would help if you posted the link to the video and quoted the exact words in quotations marks you are refering to. Remember the views of one individual does not necessarily represent the Jehovah's Witnesses as a whole - please consult our OFFICIAL website if you would like the above. My personal understanding however is NOT that that simple fact alone renders chemical evolution impossible but that a reduced atmospher poses certain problems for those that believe the components for the first cells were formed in the atmosphere of early earth and drifted into the ocean ... In short without oxygen in the atmosphere the first animo acids would have been wiped out by cosmic rays and the water that would have provided protection would have also been the death nell for further development since the presence of water favors depolymerization (breakdown of cell formation). I don't think the point could have been about Great Oxidation Event, (when or how it happened), which for the most part is irrelevent (although interesting) , but the much "simpler" question of how the first cell formed in in EITHER an oxygen free OR an oxygen rich atmosphere. It's rather like pointing out that whether the man was beheaded or drowned he would be equally dead either way. .

Answer 3

Iron Ores.

Answer 4

Nope, oxygen does not kill organisms, because, it is diluted in 69% nitrogen, that act as a "buffer" for the oxydizing properties of oxygen... oxygen concentration is 29% in modern atmosphere... (pure oxygen breathed by most vertebrated mammals, ends up killing them after 6-8 hours, of pulmonary edema)
I am not very sure that Archaic athmosphere was as rich in carbon dyoxide as your information states,,,,however, its is quite acceptable, contrary to your theory (or Dtr Miller, or any other), the presence of organic and inorganic gases such as methane, sulphydric acid (SH2), .NH3 or amoniac gas,,,.. etcetera...vulcanoes do not emit nitrogen to the atmosphere, that we know of...the main substances are water vapor, sulphuric and sulphur derivatives, and other complex gases....methane, nitrous oxyde, even small amounts of hydrogen,......no nitrogen...that is already present in normal air, in proportion of 69%.....
Vulcanoes are NOT great contributors of todays earths atmosphere...for very many reasons,,,,,first, the volume emmited, is reduced mainly, to toxic fumes that we have described, in amounts of hundreds of tons with every emission (remember the Vesubius)....and only during the eruption itself, only..,,,,no big contribution neither to athmosphere nor its composition... only the amount of ashes, for some time...(remember Chichonal in Mexico and Krakatoa, in Indonesia)........
You state that the complex molecules (complex for that stage of course) like NH3, CH4, H2 (the simplest gas of them all) were not important components in early athmosphere....nor contrbuted greatly to the formation of life.. the formation of life...
On the contrary, life began by the proper temperature and random association of those molecules ....they favored the beginning of life...not deterred it....and free hydrogen in the presence of oxygen?? no chance,,,,hydrogen, is a highly explosive gas in the presence of oxygen with presence of sunlight as a catalyzer...so I guess respectfully, that your information lacks of accuracy...
By the way...not all of the earths atmosphere gases, como from vulcanoes, as it happens in modern times...
The accepted ideas of modern biology, state exacltly the opposite of what you say...the formation of complex molecules, CREATED THE BEGINNING OF LIFE, and not the oher way round....
If not....wher did the main components of DNA came from..? pure hydrogen?...pure nitrogen?....no chance...nitrogen is quite an inert gas, when not combined with hydrogen, oxigen etc forming nitric acid, ammonia, amoniac gas etc...in sum, reactive compounds...
Nobody knows for sure, (its all theoretical), the composition of what you call Archean atmosphere....
Organic compuounds arising without CH4, nor NH4, or NH3 (ammoniac gas forms NH4 when dissolved in water), could NOT have been absent to form life...How do we explain then, the formation of carbonated and nitrogenated puric and pyrimidinic bases of DNA and RNA????
Impossible.....
Which scientist are your sources, for the assertion that athmosphere did not play a major role in life formation....??
Abiogenesis, is a term that does not mean in greek creation of life.. (it means the NOT formation of life,,,Biogenesis means creation of life)..but the absence of life (the "A" at the begining, iin greek means the lack of)
If that heory were correcty....how do they explain that there on the planet, are living microbi, in the present time, that can use or not oxygen for their basic metabolism (microaerophylic) or can addapt for the ose or not use of oxygen (anaerobic facultatives).....and they have been there for millions of years...(clostridia, Haemopyllus, aerogenes, campilobacter, eurycea etc.)
Even more, the survival of microbi, that die in the presence of small amounts of oxygen, such as the clostrudium tetanii that causes tetanus, and very many others, that are anaerobic..???
Its time to check all those facts, because they are exposed in a chaotic and rather "amateur" manner....could you please be so kind as to give me your sources?....(reference, publications, dates, etc), as many as possible...
I find myself so very many inconsistencies, that I think that all of that is wrong....or a big mistake.----
I say it analitically, not criticizing the veracity or not of the facts,,,,however most of them, sound quite amateurish, and impossible...even in the order they are presented..
The oxygen we need, does not KILL anybody, because there is ADAPTATION to several concentration of oxygen levels....so no way...

Respectfully