So, in other words, modeling physical processes which we can see here and now are irrelevant, because that is not how you like to do science. You are only interested in the historical. It is your proof text, your tea leaves, your astrological chart, your inkblot test, for whatever you want to believe.
Do you really think I don't understand that we evaluate, say, rocks, using our current understanding of physics and chemistry. Are you a rude git, or are you really this much of a cheese-brain?
"Do you really think I don't understand that we evaluate, say, rocks, using our current understanding of physics and chemistry."
You seem to be arguing profusely against using observable phenomena as a tool for explaining how life forms. Sure it is OK by you to use it for other science. But it can't be used to gain an understanding of how living things are put together (in your opinion). Do I really think you believe this? No. I'm just holding up a mirror for you to look at your own arguments. You have not identified a logical flaw in my hypothesis. Your best argument is that life takes so long to form that direct observations are meaningless.
Have you ever done work on a car? Is it important in your opinion to remember the order in which you take something apart in order to remember how to put it back together? How is attempting to make similar observations about living things unscientific? The process of doing so is the most likely way to discover how a hypothetical self organizing mechanism works, if it exists at all. I just happen to think that all such observations will tend to confirm my opinion that intelligence is the exclusive organizing principle by which life is assembled from non living materials.