Is Abiogenesis a fact?

I'm a bit confused. Isn't this pyramid upside down? Are you talking about Gould's 'cone of increasing diversity'?We normally imagine evolution as beginning from a small base and spiralling into a cone of diversity with the passage of time. You seem to have complexity at the apex, but maybe its your statistical approach I am not understanding.Also, AWOA, you might want to break your text into some shorter snippets if you want people to read and respond to your ideas - makes it less intimidating to tackle a longer post - especially for a series of calculations.

Interesting heuristic approach.Essentially, you are trying to show statistically that abiogenesis is not really beyond the realm of probability.Some assumptions might be challenged, though.
Specifically the 10% interaction rule might be considered be a large estimate of the numbers of molecules interacting in each 'generation'. Of course you have to specify average values for these calculations, but there is no reason to expect this to have been either a gradual or a continuous process - could have been rapid gains in some periods interspersed by periods of relative stasis.On a more fundamental level, you are considering molecular size as your only measure of complexity and it is not a good one. Polymers are big, but they are not complex. A small protein can have more complexity than a large polymer and a small strand of DNA can contain more potential information.Again, I think your ideas might be more accessible for debate (and more people might read about them) if you went back and edited your long post into a more readable format.You don't have to delete all the calculations, but try hitting the [enter] key after every couple of sentences