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.
Yes, that would indeed be the view of a layman. However, we do not consult the views of laymen to determine scientific issues, we consult the views of our best specialized scientists as expressed rigorously in the technical journals of their specialization--and nowhere in that venue has abiogenesis fallen. In precise point of fact, in its proper venue, with Woese's work, abiogenesis is a newly healthy subject, after being moribund for some time.
Well, actually, you could do better by responding to the substance of my argument, rather than running the car ever deeper into the same rut. The only "respectable sources" in science is where the rubber meets the road in the referreed technical journals.
You have not with this, provided me with a demonstration as to why I should believe that spontaneous generation of a prokariote is the only possible way abiogensis could occur.