I think you have misunderstood. Orgel did not demonstrate spontaneous biogenesis; he demonstrated evolution unequivocally using a bacteriophage. The problem of biogenesis remains unsolved. My guess is that work in the laboratory will prove useful in solving the problem of biogenesis in the universe, but is unlikely to actually solve the problem directly for purely practical reasons having to do with the relationship of human lifetimes to geological time. This is a problem that, I am inclined to believe, can only be solved mathematically; thus only indirectly demonstrated.
"If science makes an overwhelming case against the possibility of a natural origin of life, then there would be nothing for evolution to work with."
Again, at present all scientists, with insignificant exceptions, accept that organisms evolve. And, as I mentioned, orgel proved evolution in bacteriophage. (Virus are not organisms.) Current questions center around the origin of separate species, and, as I mentioned, one hypothesis is that separate species had either independent genesis and/or early branching in their evolution occurred.
You should be careful to distinguish between "unproven" and "disproven." Two very different things. Because the spontaneous biogenesis of life forms is unproven, and there exists numerous objections on scientific grounds to some current biogenesis hypotheses, does not mean that spontaneous biogenesis has been "disproven." It may mean, however, that some current hypotheses are quite likely incorrect. An hypothesis is just an educated guess. Once anyone comes up with scientifically sound arguments on why an hypothesis is probably wrong, the hypothesis will generally speaking be abandoned for other more promising hypotheses. On the other hand once an hypothesis has been "disproven," one is left with no choice; it must be abandoned.
Hey, I just wanted to get this out to build a foundation for a more detailed response I plan to post tomorrow or soon after.
My earlier reply to you discussed problems with abiogenesis that are applicable to bacterial evolution. I should have made the connection clearer.
This 8 minute video packs a lot of information into it relevant to our discussion. Although it does not directly mention Orgel’s Rules, it does show that they are more philosophical than scientific.
Timestamps:
00:54 Discussion on mutations
01:58 Michael Behe,Professor of Biochemistry, Lehigh University discusses evolution in real time
02:20 Comments on Richard Lenski’s bacteria experiment observing evolution in real time and discussion of beneficial mutations.
04:00 Dr. Michael Behe: “Darwin’s theory needs to show that organisms can improve by building things and that’s what has been missing in this terrific experiment.
04:10 Narrator: “This famous e coli experiment shows that trillions of random mutations are not capable of building anything new.”
04:38 Discussion of malaria
06:14 Screenshot of quote from Lynn Margulis, biologist and member of the National Academy of Sciences, “I was taught over and over that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change--led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”
As an additional thought to the material presented in the video, consider that after many years of exposure to malaria and many opportunities for mutation to provide resistance to the disease, people have not developed resistance, with perhaps one exception--sickle cell anemia seems to reduce the impact of malaria, but at the cost of introducing a new disease which itself can be fatal, just not as fatal.
