All it means is you can say "if life is rare, it's not because these specific small chemicals can't be produced". Which is a rather weak thing to say. It doesn't imply life isn't rare, or that further advancement the existence of these small building blocks is easy or inevitable.

> All it means is you can say "if life is rare, it's not because these specific small chemicals can't be produced".

This is absolutely a good finding to have in your pocket.

Whats your problem with this topic? Highly confronting posts about nothing. Iterative approach to science seems foreign here.

There's a tremendous amount of confidently stated bullshit on the issue of OoL that I have long since lost all patience with.

What's your problem with the debunking of falsehood?

You asked "does it contain ribose"; I answered (with a reputable source) in the affirmative.

Where's the falsehood?

I also asked about other things you have conveniently forgotten to mention there.

The overarching falsehood is that identification of biologically relevant molecules at 200 ppb levels, in a soup of tens of thousands of other chemicals, moves the needle any in figuring out OoL.

Finding strong things here is going to be difficult. Sometimes you have to take a bunch of weak things to figure out where they lie for guidance.