No .. its a
testable hypothesis which is based on related empirically demonstrable
physical principles ... The subject of an hypothesis is not necessarily
objectively real until it gets tested (and provides consistently verifying evidence).
We do .. (that underlined bit is just incorrect) ... (see my references instead of just repeating your claim).
ETA: On Abiogenesis: check this one out:
Spontaneous formation of autocatalytic sets with self-replicating inorganic metal oxide clusters:
The work is incomplete .. no-one is looking for 'conveyor belts'.
Those involved in Abiogenesis/Evolution research are aware of the limitations of the method they work with. There have been calls for 'new physics' to cater for the prediction difficulty arising from the models.
Eg: Stuart Kauffman says:
'Non-derivability' doesn't rule out that there will be
'a something' which can ultimately be tested (or is testable), someplace, sometime, in a very big universe. So Abiogenesis is still a testable hypothesis.
Perhaps .. maybe he's just speaking to others who understand the deeper contexts behind that statement .. and you just don't(?)
Modern-day cells are comprised of modern-day molecules whose sub units are comprised of chemicals which have been demonstrated as existing 3.5 billion years ago on Earth .. (and extrapolated as existing back to even earlier times in the universe's history).
..
Meh .. maybe (like me) they're just not interested .. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Go ask an Atheist .. (I can only
guess what they may say).