this experiment only reduces the uncertaintly that the building blocks are widely available. The big problem wiht this experiment is that it misestimated the nature of the early atmosphere and os they basically simulated another planet. We don't know if any other planets have life, so simulating another planet isn't useful to illuminate anything about life on earth.

Huh? We know whatever the early conditions of earth were they were clearly amenable to the formation of these organic compounds since life arose here. It's absolutely also interesting to know that in certain known conditions this can also arise, even if those conditions are not the only conditions capable of creating the phenomenon.

That's circular reasoning. We're here so it must have happened in this specific way therefore it happened.

Sure, an expertly guided experiment in a glass tube can make some basic amino acids but they had to be removed from the experiment immediately before the the product was ruined by further reactions. It was a guided process which we've got no further in accounting for in the wild.

We've made no progress since these experiments to answering the questions posted by the theory of abiogenesis.

We've got no concrete answers, only suppositions.

This is not a popular thing to talk about but the fact remains that we are absolutely nowhere close to solving this in the manner in which we are proceeding in OoL studies. The track record for uncondendable conjecture is abysmal.

It's kind of like saying learning to jump really high is the first step to getting to the moon.

This is an example of why analogies and metaphors make clear thinking difficult. They're easy to think up - anyone can find some abstract similarity between X and absurd thing Y - but there is no substance there since the two things being compared are actually very different beyond that abstraction.

Certainly. It would help to understand gravity, which is absolutely crucial to flying to the Moon.

Also helps with an immediate understanding of ballistics and escape velocity

Or like saying "look, the monkey can sometimes make small words appear when it bangs on the keys of this typewriter. This tells us something about the origins of novels."

Learning how writing was invented is certainly a step towards understanding the origin of novels.

studying the behaviour of a monkey when introduced to a typewriter doesn't. Studying the formation of a few molecules in a controlled environment hardly explains how living forms came to exist.

If you never learn where a few molecules came from, how could you possibly make progress on the problem?

we made substantial progress in biology before we understood molecules. this is because it's not necessary to be entirely reductive to understand larger systems.

Yes, but we're talking origin of life.

A better analogy, but it still can be steered toward, "...without a Writer. This is why there is a Writer." Capital intentional.