That's some highly biased writing you just quoted. Rather than respond here, perhaps I shall at some point write a more detailed essay. But for the time being, re-read that with an eye toward how many times he sets up a strawman and then knocks it down saying "there's no evidence". Seriously? Did you do a lit search before you reposted someone else's writing?
For example: no evidence of primordial soup? Go diving much? Craig Venter brings back genes unseen by man just driving his boat through the Indian Ocean and this guy waves his hands saying there's no evidence of primordial soup?
I'm quoting the author of the book that this thread is discussing, this isn't a random cherry-pick. :)
Craig Venter wasn't sailing around the world 3 billion years ago.
//edit
okay, so, I was trying to explain what the state-of-the-research was, and what this book says. I used to think that the RNA-world hypothesis was also the most likely! You have a good understanding of biology, and you're smart enough to make decent arguments, but you just aren't up to date.
I don't think anything I say will persuade you. You should go read The Vital Question and publish in a journal when you prove Nick Lane wrong.
For example: no evidence of primordial soup? Go diving much? Craig Venter brings back genes unseen by man just driving his boat through the Indian Ocean and this guy waves his hands saying there's no evidence of primordial soup?