As for evidence of supranatural causes and effects, it all depends on what you count as evidence, and how you define natural. If you construe evidence very narrowly along completely materialist lines, I'm not sure you would say there is evidence for anything like a mind - we are only brains with bodies. Is that your position?
I don't go down rabbit holes. Whether there is a "mind" or not is totally irrelevant and unimportant.
But there is still no evidence for anything other than natural processes.
It really is that simple.
Are these naturally occurring molecules generally understood to be alive? And could you be more specific about their identity?
If I had meant to say they were living I would have said they were living.
But I didn't, mainly because so far there is no good way to determine where the line between life and non-life is.
We can point to things that are clearly alive and things that are clearly not alive but when it gets to the actual line between the two, there is simply no answer.
But the literature is littered with examples of self-replicating, even evolving molecules.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!