Sure. Inferences of ancestral nodes in the phylogenetic trees of the oldest (most widely conserved) protein sequences increasingly mirror the abiotic distribution of amino acids produced by nonbiological chemical reactions, as we go further and further back in time. That’s evidence right there that the earliest proteins were synthesized from amino acids that existed in the environment, and that the biosynthetic pathways for their synthesis subsequently evolved. The “modern” distribution of amino acids we see in extant proteins drops off the further back we go, and larger and more complex amino acids like Tryptophan become less frequent, while the simpler amino acids like glycine, alanine, valine and so on become more and more frequent. This trend converges on the same distribution expected from chemical thermodynamic calculations of the ease of their nonbiological synthesis, the distribution observed in various carbonaceous chondrites, and mirrors the distribution also seen in various experiments in abiotic organic chemistry, such as simulated hydrothermal conditions, spark-discharge experiments and so on.
See:
Higgs PG, Pudritz RE. A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis
and the nature of the first genetic code. Astrobiology. 2009 Jun;9(5):483-90.
DOI: 10.1089/ast.2008.0280
Brooks DJ, Fresco JR, Lesk AM, Singh M. Evolution of amino acid frequencies in
proteins over deep time: inferred order of introduction of amino acids into the
genetic code. Mol Biol Evol. 2002 Oct;19(10):1645-55. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a003988
Jordan IK, Kondrashov FA, Adzhubei IA, Wolf YI, Koonin EV, Kondrashov AS,
Sunyaev S. A universal trend of amino acid gain and loss in protein evolution.
Nature. 2005 Feb 10;433(7026):633-8. Epub 2005 Jan 19. Erratum in: Nature. 2005
May 26;435(7041):528. DOI: 10.1038/nature03306
Ask yourself, why should this trend be observed in amino acid gain and loss? Why would the frequency of nonbiologically produced amino acids increase the further we go back in time? If life originated by some sort of intelligent design, the designer could have made the first life to exist with basically any distribution of amino acids that the designer wanted. For example, the designer could have made the first life to exist with the exact same distribution of amino acids that we see in life that exists today on Earth in 2019. Why use fewer , and why use fewer by excluding the ones we see used more today? Why decide to mirror the abiotic distribution? A deceptive designer?
This is real data, and it’s evidence. It doesn’t allow us conclude much by way of inference about the earliest stages of life, except to say that the first proteins were apparently synthesized from nonbiologically produced amino acids. We don’t know the environmental, or even “cellular” context in which this evolution took place, we don’t know the genetic or membrane compositions of this stage of life (if any). There are countless things we don’t yet know. That doesn’t mean, just because we don’t know these things, that life couldn’t arise.
And if you know, how does it compare both quantitatively and qualitatively with evidence that would indicate that it is unlikely to have been presently known natural processes?
Well since such evidence doesn’t exist that’s impossible to give an a priori answer to. You’d have to first finds such evidence before we could compare it.