[Secret Agent Man]

Not really. No scientist can show anywhere in nature the exact conditions to make this happen. They can’t find any now, nor would they be able to. You’re assuming that it must have occurred via the processes they used in the lab, somewhere in nature, but since they will never find those conditions today (unlike your lighting example) then it will remain unproven.

And it still shows that intelligence is required to generate the conditions.

[TigersEye]

No scientist can show anywhere in nature the exact conditions to make this happen. They can’t find any now, nor would they be able to.

Where did they get the RNA?

[freedumb2003]

Not really. No scientist can show anywhere in nature the exact conditions to make this happen. They can’t find any now, nor would they be able to. You’re assuming that it must have occurred via the processes they used in the lab, somewhere in nature, but since they will never find those conditions today (unlike your lighting example) then it will remain unproven.

How do you know? If the processes themselves are observed in nature then they are simulating the interaction.

And it still shows that intelligence is required to generate the conditions.

The fact that something is unknown or not yet known in no way leads to a conclusion of intelligence. It just means it is as yet unknown.

No offense, but that is one of the broadest non sequiturs I have read in quite some time.