"Can you see anything being made de novo by random or chance processes?"
Since that is a mischaracterization of how evolution works, the question is irrelevant.
"Or from spontaneous generation or abiogenesis?"
Spontaneous generation is a disproven hypothesis and has nothing to do with evolution. Abiogenesis was a process that occurred during the earth's earliest history under conditions vastly different from today. So again the question is irrelevant.
"Everything I see in the biosphere comes from reproduction."
Then you're not looking hard enough. Mutations can create new genetic material without the benefit of reproduction. Also the biosphere contains a large number of non-living systems that are only partially dependent upon living organisms and have nothing to do with reproduction. These include systems like the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the sulfur cycle and more.
"All inorganic stuff being made comes from blueprints in the living things making them."
Not really. Living things don't make "inorganic stuff"; they recycle it from the biosphere and the other living organisms they consume. "Inorganic stuff" is made by inorganic mechanisms. In organic rocks, for example, are made by volcanism, sedimentation of eroded rock and metamorphic activity, not by living organisms.
"In order for anything to happen anywhere, there must be an energy conversion and after the conversion some of the energy becomes unavailable."
But while that energy is available it can do work to build things up. You might be interested to know that no spontaneous reaction can occur without an increase in entropy, and order cannot be built up without spontaneous reactions, so order cannot be built up without an increase in entropy. For example, the folding of a protein or the freezing of a liquid, both of which are spontaneous reactions that create order, are driven by increases in entropy.
"Evolution is a mental construct from the Greek Promethean myth because it is observed nowhere. And if it is observed nowhere, then it is not science.
So by that very logic, since it is observed everywhere it must be a science.
"Scientists don't believe speculations until put to the experimental test and proven with statistical significance, at least P<0.05."
That's not strictly true. The speculation describes the results that one should get under a given set of experimental conditions. If you get those expected results, but the statistical significance is greater than 0.05, those results, even though they were predicted by the speculation, occurred by chance, not by the specific, non-random experimental conditions, so the speculation is not considered proven. But it's not considered disproven either, because no specific, non-random results were obtained. If on the other hand you do not get the results predicted by the speculation, but the results you do get have a statistical significance of less than 0.05, then the results are believed because they are the result of the specific, non-random experimental conditions and not by chance. They also disprove the speculation.
The point is that statistical significance does not equate to probability in the way you mean it. You want to use probability in such a way that the greater the probability value, the more likely the event will occur. So when you say that the probability that a single protein molecule will evolve is 10^-75, you are claiming that this event has a very low likelihood of occurring. What you neglect to say is, though, is that the greater the probability value the more likely the event will occur **by chance alone**. In other words, a protein has only a 10^-75 probability of evolving **by chance alone**.
The reason why this is important is because a scientist **does not want** his results to occur by chance alone. He wants them to occur because of the experimental conditions. That's where statistical significance comes in. Before a scientist will believe his results he needs to make sure that probability that his results occurred **by chance alone** are 0.05 or less. In other words, a scientist wants results that are too improbable to have occurred by chance alone; the more improbable the better. Experimental results with a statistical significance of only 10^-75 would be a cause for wild celebration in a lab, because it would mean that the experimental results are so improbable they could just about never have occurred by chance alone.
So far from being unbelievable, the fact that the probability that a single protein could evolve by chance alone is only 10^-75 would be very comforting to scientists, because it would mean that proteins could have evolved only by specific evolutionary mechanisms that could conceivably be studied and understood, and not as a result of random events that could never be studied or understood.
"If evolution works by chance and random processes, we can calculate that, and if the chance of evolving just one molecule of one protein is 2.3 x 10^-75, then that misses the standard for a scientist by more than a vigintillion and I can't believe it."
IF evolution worked by chance and random processes, a single protein molecule never could evolve. But the fact that a single protein cannot evolve by chance, but clearly has evolved, means that it evolved according to a set of mechanisms working from contingency.
"If the opposite is speculated, that it can be made from a blueprint, that can be observed, that satisfies the standard and I can believe it."
However, just because evolution works by a set of mechanisms does not mean that it follows an unchanging blueprint. There are random events that can and do influence evolution. Mutations, changes in climatic conditions and weather patterns, catastrophic events, all influence how the mechanisms manage an evolutionary event. These random events are called historical contingencies, and while they are truly chance events, they only influence how evolution will go, not control or direct it. So the fact that any event might be highly improbable does not mean that evolution cannot occur, just that it won't occur the same way if the event does not occur that it would if the event did occur.
Still, since I have demonstrated that evolution is governed by observable mechanisms, you will believe it now.
"I consider myself a scientist...."
Just out of curiosity then, what is your degree in, where did you get it, what research do you work on, have you published any papers we can read?
Kevin L. O'Brien
"Good God, consider yourselves fortunate that you have John Adams to abuse, for no sane man would tolerate it!" William Daniels, _1776_