Economy is not a fundamental principle of physical law. I recommend you try to work up from thermodynamics. Start by asking yourself how many molecules of water are in the ocean, and how frequently they vibrate.
Didn't Feynman win a Nobel Prize for showing that particles are always most likely to take the most efficient path?
Anyway, Occam's razor is about preferring theories, not physical laws. If two theories match a given set of observations, there is no objective reason to prefer one over the other. But it is easier to work with a simpler theory, so scientists prefer it out of self-interest.
Put another way, if there is no way to distinguish between a LUCA and continuous abiogenesis that looks exactly like a LUCA, then there's no reason to care that continuous abiogenesis might be occuring.
But if you believe there is a way to prove that continuous abiogenesis is occuring, then by all means conduct the observation and publish it.
> Nobel Prize for showing that particles are always most likely to take the most efficient path
I only have a BS in physics, so do please correct me, but the path integral formulation of quantum mechanics helps predict particle behavior but doesn't say anything is most likely to happen all the time. Indeed, it requires considering how often very absurd things happen.
> it is easier to work with a simpler theory, so scientists prefer it out of self-interest
Thermodynamics is definitely simpler than any phylogenetic analysis trying to peer backward through a graph with many, many cycles in it. But thermodynamics requires accepting the possibilities of just how many times some very unlikely event might happen.
I simply meant that there are no data to show that any current living thing derives from a different earliest ancestor from all of the other currently living things. You are welcome to show me a counterexample if you know of one.
