>>13679862>Reading the abstract it doesn't seem to focus on your claim that he thinks it'll never happen againYou should probably learn to read the body of a paper. He doesn't outright say this because people would call him a kook if he outright said that: that the multiverse must exist for life to be plausible. In the abstract he says a viable alternative to the numerous paradoxes he lists regarding the "RNA world" is his hypothesis which he later on in the body says would be "extremely rare in the multiverse"
There is no reason to write the paper if he thinks the viable alternative he offers is so extremely rare compared to established belief that the RNA world happened unless he believes the RNA world is likewise rare. The reviewer comments of that paper has other experts making official statements basically saying he's giving a win to intelligent design advocates saying "it opens a huge door for them"
>Can you provide the relevant quote?short sighted question. Life being a paradox and extremely rare is the overall implication of the paper which is why other experts are effectively saying he's getting too close to implying intelligent design advocates are correct in their belief that it's incomprehensibly unlikely life could arise in just one lifetime of the universe.
If you really want a quote, then I guess it would be this
>The pertinent question is whether or not this is the most likely breakthrough stage the appearance of which on earth would be explained by chance and anthropic selection. I suggest that such a possibility should be taken seriously, given the paradoxes of OORT. He's saying that his hypothesis, that would be extremely rare occurrence across infinite multiverses, should be taken seriously compared to current abiogenesis theories.
I'm usually more careful with what I say about this paper when I link it saying he "strongly implies" life will never happen again, not "he thinks it will never happen again" and I should stick with the latter
