I actually agree with you and I stated Huxley was criticized in an earlier post but for the application of probability to endpoints. The author of this criticsm appears to playing a word game. What is the difference between “some particular replicator” and “any interesting replicator”? It sounds like a preference, not a criticism of the method. It may be a particular interest of the critic but it certainly doesn’t refute the validity of the point choices as being an incorrect approach
In any case, endpoints are used everywhere in the physical sciences for probability calculations. “How did we get here” is a common question.
Now that's something you don't see a lot in these discussions. Thank you.
What is the difference between “some particular replicator” and “any interesting replicator”?
It's the difference between "how do we get to an Embassy Suites with a heated pool and wi-fi?" and "how do we find a motel for the night?" The odds of the first are much lower than the odds of the second. When you're looking at "some particular replicator," your figuring out the chances of generating a human or a clam or a tree or a bacterium or something else you specify. When you ask for "any interesting replicator," you'll take any of the above along with anything else that meets the criteria, including things that don't already exist. It's a much wider net, and that affects the probability calculations.
“How did we get here” is a common question.
Sure, and a valid one. And like I said about the rivers, "why is there an oxbow in this river right here?" is a perfectly good question, with lots of improbable events in the answer. But that doesn't mean the existence of some river between the mountains and the sea is equally improbable.