The Beilstein database lists millions of different carbon based compounds. Only a small portion of these are useful towards life. Chemical plants can make many of these in varying grades of purity by controlled processes, using feedback mechanisms to modify various processes conditions to get the target results. Without precisely controlled conditions, the wrong products are made.
Natural environmental conditions fluctuate wildly. There is no feedback control available for prebiotic processes. The question for abiogenists to answer is simple: If scientists cannot get a successful experiment to work under tightly controlled conditions of their choosing, how could natural process in a natural environment be expected to give better results with required consistency under uncontrolled conditions? Variations over long periods of time between flood and drought, summer and winter, cloudy and bright, varying and erratic sources of feedstock (chemicals used in a process), varying and erratic sources of potential contaminants, varying and erratic ratios between substrate components, should lead to products of wildly varying constituency. The appearance of life plausibly requires a consistent supply of feedstock components. What experimental justification is there to expect usable products to form under wildly varying natural conditions, even though they don’t form under tightly controlled laboratory conditions? I am not looking for imaginary, hoped-for evidence. This has been the response of Darwin, Huxley, and modern scientists to questions like this. It is why I consider them to be fake. I am looking for actual experimental basis which experimentally shows why wildly-fluctuating natural conditions should not be of concern.