Why? Be specific.
"Name the protein. That is all I ask. Then we can discuss what the experiment involving the named chemical "proves" or demonstrates. That is called discussion. But I find that you don't want to do that. All you seem to want to do is cite some thing and assert a definite answer to what the citation means.
Name what protein? The protein that started our lineage? Who believes we could conclusively provide that? We do not need to know the exact protein, we just need to show that abiogenesis is possible and can be done in less than 3.2 billion years.
ME:Abiogenesis, or life from non-life postulates that early life started with self-replicating chemicals, something we have observed,
If you look back through my posts you will see that I did not claim I knew the exact chemicals of our pre-biotic ancestor. I said we have observed self replicating chemicals. I also made that comment to differentiate abiogenesis from the ToE. Please stay with the focus of the sidebar.
BTW, I didn't call abiogenesis a theory, I called it an hypothesis. It is still in the process of being tested.
The one you claim you cited.
The first experiment, I believe, was a designed 32 unit protein, specifically chosen because it would act as a template for the designed reaction. It was then split into a 17 unit block and a 15 unit block. The blocks were properly activated and then allowed to react. Voila! A designed experiment produced a designed result. Half a cadillac joined preferentially to the matching other half of a cadillac when superglue was put into the proper position. Fact is, there are plenty of "self-replicating" chemicals. They just reside in living things. Simply put, to dot the i in a penned copy of "Hamlet" does not make you Shakespeare.