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.
There’s a bunch of other steps after that, but you can’t get this far, so I think that is a sufficient demonstration.
Demonstration of what? That we don't have a good theory of all the steps in the origin of life? I've acknowledged that several times. All I've been saying is that I wouldn't bet against science eventually coming up with one.
“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.