I'm reasonably familiar with the subject.
While no one may assemble life in a lab to validate my arguments, they will try because it is useful in other ways. Nano machines will largely mimic existing structures in nature because they are very efficient. When it becomes feasible to assemble life, I expect there will be many to step up to the plate and try.
You mean like a Sears santa is useful, just like a Montegomery Ward Santa, or a giant elf Santa with magical flying raindeer?
Nano machines will largely mimic existing structures in nature because they are very efficient.
That would be wrong. Compared to machine tool approaches organic structures leave a lot to be desired. We will undoubtedly see hybrids, though.
When it becomes feasible to assemble life, I expect there will be many to step up to the plate and try.
No. You are vastly unaware, apprently, of how much engineering it would take to duplicate a living cell "from scratch" as you have insisted. It won't be done because it proves no point worth proving, by either side of this debate. Do you think we should invent geologic plates "from scratch" to prove or disprove the notion that God created the earth on the 7th day, complete fossils embedded in tectonic plates? If you actually did it, or tried to do it and failed, would it change the confidence you might have in either the godditit theory or the coelescing dust theory?
Ans? No, because, just as in the case of the sears santa experiment--and as, amusingly enough, you have been at pains to point out--my ability to produce a sears santa doesn't have butkus to do with the existence or non-existence of either the Monkey-ward santa or the flying elf santa.