You are a large bag of molecules. You self replicate and generate a variety of structures. You are great evidence that complex systems arise out of simple phenomena. Wolfram's initial explorations dealt with this in particular. This is also the reason for developing systems like Conway's game of life. Simple rules. Complex outcomes.

The pumice stone you use to scrub yourself with has a particular distinctive pattern to it, not caused by life, but rather by volcanic and non-biological forces. When you wash your hands with soap and water in front of that bathroom mirror, the you construct a reversed lipid bi-layer, a self organizing structure that occurs as a result of polarity. This set of forces is the same as those that self-organizes your cell walls.

I think there's plenty of evidence. You just need to do a bit of learning to understand what you're seeing.

There have been plenty of experiments showing that the building blocks of life will spontaneously self-assemble under the right conditions. We have now confirmed that comets and other bodies in space contain complex molecules such as hydrocarbons.

There are also plenty of experiments demonstrating that certain structures self-assemble and even "replicate" (for some definition of replicate) under the right conditions, purely as a function of their molecular structure.

There is no conclusive proof... but certainly everything we've discovered to date supports abiogenesis of life given the right conditions and a few 100 million years for many trillions of attempts. It is likely that the first "life" wasn't life as we would define it, more like a prion: a self-replicating molecule built out of amino acids dumped on Earth from meteorite and comet impacts. The first true "life" was probably exceedingly simple and lived off chemical reactions around hydrothermal vents.

No conclusive proof? No proof at all.

Go and listen to James Tour and his video on the problems of just getting the right pre-life chemical synthesis to occur. He is a organic chemist (one of the top in the world) and he talks about each of the incompatible processes between each step.

I would be more inclined to take his word for it than a biologist (of any stripe). Abiogenesis seems to be the least likely scenario in the formation of life (as in close to 0 as to make no difference) irrespective of the amount of time that is allocated.

> Abiogenesis seems to be the least likely scenario in the formation of life

Yet we know it happened, because life exists, and it didn't spring from magic so it must have sprung from non-life. Random chance is a hell of a search algorithm, abiogenesis is simply the inevitable outcome randomly trying every possible combination over hundreds of millions of years. There are no more likely scenarios.

Just because we know something is, does not mean know why. You make a very broad leap to say that there are only two possibilities - magic and abiogenesis - and that one of those possibilities doesn't exist.

There are three broad classifications of philosophical belief - the universe is all there is and there is no non-physical component, that the universe is and has a non-physical component (it is alive, etc) and that there is a creator who is separate from the universe and that creator made the universe.

Within that context, the three can be split into two variations, the universe (with or without a non-physical component) is eternal (steady state or cyclic) and an eternal creator who has made a finite lifespan universe.

Abiogenesis can arise in one of those three variations, in the other two, either the universe creates life as apart of its functionality (its non-physical attributes) or there is a creator that has designed and set in motion life.

Please note that abiogenesis is a completely different subject to any evolutionary model that people may subscribe to.

You can argue all you like about the variations above but you cannot use science to determine the "truth" of which variety you personally believe in. That is a metaphysical/philosophical/religious debate that is outside of the domain of science.

So, where does that leave us in this discussion? Well, it says that you have not given much thought to your point of view in such a way that you are able to logically argue its merit. In which case, I would suggest that you might like to flesh out your arguments because as they stand, the arguments you present are extremely weak and illogical.

His point was that we know it happens because we exist, it's that we don't know how it happened.