Alex,
Your reference to Shapiro is lifted from page 5 of "The Origin of Life: Five Questions Worth Asking:, Endnotes 3, 4, and 5 -- Scientific American, June 2007. ("A Simpler Origin for Life")
Shapiro's article is available at: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-simpler-origin-for-life/
The article’s heading explains the brochure’s selective quotes:
“The sudden appearance of a large-self-copying molecule such as RNA was exceedingly improbable. Energy-driven networks of small molecules afford better odds as the initiators of life.” (underlining mine)Excerpts from that article:
DNA, RNA, proteins and other elaborate large molecules must then be set aside as participants in the origin of life. … Fortunately, an alternative group of theories that can employ these materials has existed for decades. The theories employ a thermodynamic rather than a genetic definition of life …
One assumption of the small-molecule approach is that coupled reactions and primitive catalysts sufficient to get life started exist in nature. ... The small molecule approach to the origin of life makes several demands upon nature (a compartment, an external energy supply, a driver reaction coupled to that supply, and the existence of a chemical network that contains that reaction). These requirements are general in nature, however, and are immensely more probable than the elaborate multi-step pathways needed to form a molecule that can function as a replicator. …
If the general small-molecule paradigm were confirmed, then our expectations of the place of life in the universe would change. … The small-molecule alternative is in harmony with the views of biologist Stuart Kauffman: “If this is all true, life is vastly more probable than we have supposed. Not only are we at home in the universe, but we are far more likely to share it with unknown companions.”