Why "Fossil Fuels" are not Fossil Fuels
The claim that petroleum originates with biological materials seems strange, because biology is too dynamic for such one-way diversions. The real proof that petroleum is not biological in its origins is in the chemistry.
Petroleum is called hydrocarbon because of hydrogen attached to carbon. Hydrogen-carbon bonds are very high in energy. Biological material has oxygen with it, called carbohydrate, which has less chemical energy.
There is no way to increase chemical energy other than radiation. (ATP and similar reactions do not increase energy; they transfers energy with some loss.) Heat and pressure will not increase chemical energy, because they act upon nuclei, while chemical energy is in electrons which spin around nuclei. There is nothing that can be done to nuclei which will increase the relative motion of electrons which spin around them short of a nuclear reaction. (All chemical reactions go down-hill energetically with some energy loss as heat. There is not a one which does not lose energy apart from photochemical reactions.)
It means so-called fossil fuels did not originate with biological materials, because they were not exposed to light in a way which would increase the chemical energy from carbohydrates to hydrocarbons.
There could be an energy neutral shift through oxidation of some molecules and reduction of carbon. But the oxidized molecules do not exist with fossil fuels. You say they evaporated. They didn't. Some alcohols would not be highly volatile, and the volatile hydrocarbons, such as methane and benzene did not evaporate away.
Also significant is the degree of hydrogenation. Chemical reactions would not have left so much hydrogen on the carbon and no other oddities than hydrogenated carbon. The aromatics in liquid petroleum are interesting but too homogeneous to explain major chemical reactions.
Some hydrocarbons are high in sulfur, while biological materials are extremely low in sulfur. None of the hydrocarbons have significant nitrogen, while all biological materials are high in nitrogen. The mineral proportionalities would have to be similar regardless of volatility of other components.
How can physicists know what they are doing in more complex areas and not know what chemical energy is? Quantum mechanics is a study of electrons which spin around nuclei.
In fact, physicists have quantum mechanics wrong also. What they mean by quantum is that radiation exists as particles as well as waves. They admit that the two concepts contradict each other but continue down that path anyway.
The reason for assuming radiation is like a particle is that it imparts energy to orbiting electrons in large leaps. Electrons which orbit nuclei will only increase their energy in stages, as they jump from one "orbital" to another. The radiation which imparts energy to orbiting electrons has to be just the right wavelength. The assumption is that the reason why the wavelength has to be just right is because there are different amounts of energy in each wavelength, and a particle of energy seems to be required.
That isn't what happens. Particles have length, width and height; energy does not. The reason why the wavelength has to be just right is because a wave must bump the electron on one side of its orbit only. If both sides are bumped, one effect will neutralize the other. When the wavelength is just right, an electron can be bumped repeatedly, until it acquires enough energy to jump to a higher orbit. With repeated bumps, a wave does not have to have the same energy within it as the electron acquires.
How can physicists be so wrong with quantum mechanics and be such wizards on subjects such as relativity? Relativity is nonfalsifiable, because it is totally contrived. It is only the obscurity which makes it unquestionable fact.
Physicists do something similar in the study of ATP. Several rotating proteins have been found in the mechanism for energizing the chemical energy carrier, ATP, through respiration. Biophysicists said that "binding force" and motion transfer energy from the rotating proteins to the ATP precursor. They assume chemical energy is derived from the kinetic energy of force and motion. Kinetic energy cannot be transformed into chemical energy; only radiant energy can.
Where Hydrocarbons Came From
In the formation of Earth, carbon would have come into contact with hydrogen before oxygen resulting in carbon forming hydrocarbons. The more volatile hydrocarbons were oxidized to form water creating the oceans and carbon dioxide creating chalk. There is no other explanation for the origins of the oceans. Comets are too rare to explain the oceans. Some gaseous oxygen probably came into contact with the hydrocarbons early on resulting in water forming early on, but there would have been perchlorates which provided oxygen later. Perchlorates would have produced oxygen somewhat gradually. The oxygen would have run out before the heavier hydrocarbons were oxidized.
The oceans are only 3% salt, which might indicate that only 3% of the water came from perchlorates. However, there are salt deposits with large amounts of salt, which could also have been derived from perchlorate. It means a large part of the water in the oceans could have originated with oxygen derived from perchlorates, which would have been a more gradual process that gaseous oxygen reacting with hydrocarbons.