“If you want to claim that nothing modeled in a lab can ever teach us anything about phenomena outside the lab, that’s up to you. I disagree, as would lots of researchers in different fields.”
I didn’t claim that, but if you are trying to demonstrate that something can be produced abiotically, without intelligent intervention, you cannot do so by showing that intelligent, biological organisms can purposefully replicate it in a lab. The evidence you offered is not a demonstration of the claim.
“Demonstration of what?”
Demonstration of how far we are from imagining any way even the most basic constituents of life could be generated abiotically. Most scientists just assume it must happen, because that is the default assumption that scientific naturalism prompts. However, so far nobody has proposed a remotely sensible way that it might happen.
Of course you can! It sort of depends on your approach. If you're trying to synthesize RNA by patching together different strands, then you have a point. But if you manage to produce RNA by recreating plausible conditions from the time and seeing what results, then sure, you've shown that it can happen. It's just like any other lab model of events that take place without intelligent intervention, from weather to beach movement.
so far nobody has proposed a remotely sensible way that it might happen.
Depends on what you mean by "sensible," I guess. By my standards, there are at least a few sensible hypotheses. Here's an overview of some.