[unlearner]

"Do you understand why this makes your experiment utterly irrelevant to the question of where life comes from? Since your experiment is an attempt to recreate a picture of life's instantaneous origins science does not underwrite?"

That is your assumption. There is a distinction between life and non life, even if life is difficult to define. There must have been at least one point in the past in which non life became living. Otherwise, either natural life has always existed and has continued to exist uninterrupted until now, OR life came to exist from nothing. Your argument for abiogenesis does not negate that at least one transitional moment must have occurred at some point in time, even if that point is difficult to pinpoint.

[donh]

That is your assumption. There is a distinction between life and non life, even if life is difficult to define.

In your mind, at least. In the minds of biological scientists, it's just an arbitrary, man-made distinction, just like distinct speciation. There is no moment in time when one species give rise to another, just as there is no moment in time when life gives birth to non-life. Again, you can't construct a scientific experiment out of vapid lay-generalities of little or no specific meaning.

There must have been at least one point in the past in which non life became living. Otherwise, either natural life has always existed and has continued to exist uninterrupted until now, OR life came to exist from nothing. Your argument for abiogenesis does not negate that at least one transitional moment must have occurred at some point in time, even if that point is difficult to pinpoint.

You don't understand the issues involved here. You are trying to invent an experiment using a childishly simplified view of what science actually thinks happened.