Or, one could more accurately (and far more charitably) describe these efforts as testing the predictions of different hypotheses, no?
But you left out the other things Lane mentions and doesn't mention, like proteins as an early component. Yet you claimed above:
Where do you find such a requirement in reading Lane's book? And have you forgotten about the RNA World hypothesis?
Or that you and scientists have very different ideas about the origins of life. As in yours are cellular, whereas those in the field are not.
Or that it took a very, very long time.
Or that conditions today are very different then they were.
I don't see how that follows.
That's a very poor analogy, as you're grossly distorting the time component. If you bought Powerball tickets every day for billions of years, you're likely to win.