The questions we must first ask in relation to our question:
Is Darwin’s theory for the origin of life a fact or simply a theory?
Are similarities in species evidence of a common ancestor or rather a common designer?
Has any new evidence made Darwin’s theory redundant?
Despite being regarded as fact, Darwin’s theory that molecules turned into sentient life comes into deep trouble when faced with the probabilistic unlikeness of even a single part of a simple cell being made by chance; the chance that just a single, functional protein would form on the primordial earth (in ideal conditions) is 1/10^156. That's equal to one chance in every: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Although microevolution (small changes within a species) is observed, macroevolution (the idea that all animals have a common ancestor) seems to be unobservable, if not completely opposed, by the large gaps of intermittent stages in the fossil records, a concern that Darwin himself wrote about in his paper, asking:
"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? … This, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory"
With time, Darwin expected us to discover these stages – no adequate findings have yet to be found. Since Darwin, an incredible amount of new science has been discovered (such as irreducible complexity), all of which make the case that life is not only incredibly hard to sustain without incredible precision, but that ideas such as random mutations and natural selection would not be able to make significant, species-altering changes to life without compromising the life of the organism itself
Conclusion
With today’s greater understanding, the Darwinian idea that life came to occur from nothing more than random mutations and natural selection is both vastly improbable and logically incoherent. Furthermore, it does not even begin to touch on how consciousness, morality, or even the first living "thing" came into being.