Finding exponentially decreasing amounts of specific chemicals is about as informative as finding short words in strings of random letters.

Finding short words in strings of random letters at least establishes the existence of letters and words.

It doesn't demonstrate the existence of Shakespeare's works, but it's a building block that's good to know exists.

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.