I hate to keep uselessly trying to burst this bubble, but no one's speculations, however couched in apparent mathematical rigor, is science. Science is a heavily co-operative enterprise that works extremely hard, extremely publicly, extremely methodically, to hammer out a current concensus about what we think is going on, based on critically designed experiments and field work--see "Nature" or "Science News" and the refereed technical journals, do NOT see random compilations of speculations no matter how august the speculator.
What you are looking for is a miracle. You're next project should be finding the perpetual motion machine.
I believe I've found one. No matter what gaping objections one points out in his vastly over-generous understanding of what science consists of--he keeps cranking out the exact same unscientific thesis under the rubric of science over and over.
Kindly supply the proof you have been ducking for 100 posts that abiogenesis could only have happened by the sudden spontaneous formation of a prokariote.
What we are having is a dispute about a definition. You are defining science as "a heavily co-operative enterprise etc." and citing Nature and other journals as the arbitrator of what falls under that definition.
I will give you a layman's view. When Francis Crick invokes space aliens as the cause of life on earth because spontaneous development would be impossible-- the science has fallen. I'd say the benchmark is the space aliens.
Kindly supply the proof you have been ducking for 100 posts that abiogenesis could only have happened by the sudden spontaneous formation of a prokariote.
I've given you links to mathematical calculations from respected sources showing the impossibility of the spontaneous formation of life. I'll confess I can't do better.