Hi Homunculus! Welcome to EvC.
Let me give you some things to consider, concerning your remarks:
First, I would like to give attention to the observational control that it is necessary for organic life to produce life. Not having laid claim to the impossibility of spontaneous self-generating organic bio genesis, but the observational rule is dependent on an organic source for life, requiring something living to produce and give life.
Well, we
do have some observation to suggest that life
can indeed come from non-life: when we start digging into the earth's layers, the deeper you go (back in time), the less complex the remains of lifeforms seem to become. The trend is obvious. Until at some point NO remains can be found anymore. In the absence of evidence for some creator (aliens or Gods or whatever), this leads to the conclusion that first there must have been only "non-life", which somehow brought on "life". That is simply what the evidence tells us at this point.
The trouble with bio genesis is identifying the substantial variables. If organic life is capable of spontaneous generation, then we would see it today
This is less obvious than it may seem. One thing to consider is that life itself has greatly transformed the environment. The earth looks completely different from what it might have looked like at the time when abiogenesis supposedly happened. The oxygen in the atmosphere, for one, would not be here without life, but there are countless other examples. It might very well be that life metaphorically "kicks away the ladder on which it stands"; i.e. it destroys the circumstances that were suitable for giving rise to it.
Another thing to consider is that any new lifeform that tries to come into being, is faced with fearce competition from life that has had a headstart of billions of years of evolution to adapt to its environment. This in contrast with the first life which had NO competition at all. It might be practically impossible to overcome that burden.
We don't know these things for sure, but they are certainly reasonable considerations.
and supposing, the observational universe does not hold claim to spontaneous generation anywhere.
I wouldn't use this as an argument. Let's say you're sitting in your chair watching TV when you suddenly remember that you lost your carkeys. Your look around on your chair without leaving it, you search your pockets... but don't find any keys.
Would you jump to the definitive conclusion that you lost your keys forever?
Of course not! You haven't even stood up from your chair. You didn't look behind all the furniture in the room. You haven't looked in the car. You haven't checked out your trousers in the washing machine. Etc. etc.
The point is: it makes little sense to declare that life/abiogenesis are unique, when we haven't even properly checked out our own solarsystem, let alone the billions and billions of other solarsystems we now know are out there.
The circumstances fitting on the earth to maintain just such a delicate and meticulous balance of climate, atmosphere and solar distance is so particular on an astronomical level, the "crack" of life's survival is ridiculous.
There isn't anything particularly surprising about these seemingly special circumstances. For an intelligent species like us the exist, they
must first be available.
Without this prerequisite, no selfconsciousness would be around to wonder about it all. This is called the weak anthropic principle. It means that, without more data, we can not come to any reasonable conlusion at all about our circumstances being special or not, based on this experience alone.