I don't think there's a calculation to prove it because it would require a very thorough definition in the first place, which could be taken as a sufficient answer in its own right. The answer is of course 42.
On another note, at "17 hours ago" and no response I guess they are still writing trying to work it out, or gave up, if they are anything like me and my random blurts
Do they have a deeper understanding? Perhaps. Have they come anywhere near the "origin of life"? Nope.
You can't ever test anything in the past, so by your logic nothing in the past can be considered scientific. By your logic, plate tectonics can't explain the past movement of continents.
Which is, of course, wrong.
We can absolutely test aspects of a theory, verify its general validity, see that it best correlates with past evidence, and therefore infer past causes. Nothing of that is unscientific -- to the contrary, that's precisely how science works.
Luckily, we have things like fossil records to justify such conclusions. They provide the second point with which we can "fit a curve" when exploring history.
With this "origin of life" stuff, we don't have that second point of confirmation. We think up a bizarre process, execute it, and see that it produced some molecules that we see in modern day life. We then have the gall to say that we've discovered "the origins of life"? Yeah right... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27974369