What do scientists say about existence?

[Astreja]

Snowtracks, I think you missed the point of Dawkins' computer programming experiment.... [snip]

The computer program was to demonstrate how natural pathway could result in pathways leading to greater complexity, but his involvement unwittingly demonstrated that intelligence was required.  Same thing is involved in attempting to create life-in-the-lab.

Has anyone noticed that the evolutionists never get around to the problem that when dead-end pathways are encounter, that the original less complex life form has to keep functioning while millions of failed pathways are attempted awaiting a 'go or no-go' signal back to the original life?

The only thing that is actually required is chemistry.  Stable organic molecules will be in a better position to aggregate into increasingly complex structures than unstable ones.

A biochemistry experiment on abiogenesis, properly set up, merely makes an educated guess at what chemical conditions may have been present in the early days of the Earth, creates a variety of chemical environments, puts safeguards in place to prevent contamination, and then leaves them alone to see what happens.  The objective is to determine the initial conditions and subsequent events, to refine theories on how life could have arisen from non-life once a proper chemical milieu was in place.  No gods required.

Could you please clarify your second paragraph?  I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.  If you're asking something to the effect of "What happened to the amoebas when their offspring hit a wall trying to evolve into something bigger," the answer is simple:  An ancestral genetic line can just keep going if its environment permits.  It doesn't matter how many dead ends the offspring hit; as soon as a successful, viable combination is produced it will become a second ancestral line (and in the meantime, the original ancestor might produce additional successful descendants that are different from the first successful offspring).