[unlearner]

Well, if you boil your argument down to its essentials, we have that it is impossible, or nearly so, to replicate abiogenesis in the lab; but if it is possible to assemble life, it is meaningless in the context of explaining the origins of life. This position seems to imply the premise that intelligent assembly is simpler and more efficient way for life to form.

"Why in the world would it matter that natural processes are inefficient to the theory that abiogensis was natural and gradual?"

Even if you have infinite amounts of time, you still need to demonstrate that it is logical for "progress" to made toward the formation of life, and that setbacks would not tend to overwhelm this progress.

Perhaps, abiogenesis is so inefficient that it could never happen even if an unlimited amount of time is available.

[donh]

Perhaps, abiogenesis is so inefficient that it could never happen even if an unlimited amount of time is available.

Indeed. Perhaps continents are too heavy to push apart without Godly intervention. Perhaps God planted all those fossils in the earth 6000 years ago when he created it. Perhaps the universe is actually just a fevered dream of Bishop Berkeley.

Science, however, limited as it is, has to confine it's attention to theories that seem to have some sort of connection to some sort of tangible evidence they can eventually look at, and so far, while there's lots of evidence to suggest a gradual runup to DNA-centric cellular life, there is none to suggest that this evidence is bogus because of efficiency considerations.