“To my knowledge, nobody had concluded anything yet.”
I had in mind the people who make comments on FR and the Fundamentalist sources they rely upon for citations.
“This particular site lists seven different theories of abiogenisis, including panspermia.”
That site is simplistic, out of date, has an incorrect timeline, and omits major pieces of the puzzle.
“And this site provides a lengthy discussion on the whole subject.”
The Wikipedia article on Abiogenesis is a fair introduction to the subject. It is lacking in some of the recent details.
“The real fallacy, imho, is in calling any of these ideas scientific “theories” — in fact none of them are real theories, all are at best hypotheses of which only some can be actually tested.”
The author/s of the article abuse the language by using the word, theory, where they should have used hypothesis and/or conjecture. Such abuse of the language and terminology provides a clue to the limitations of the article’s reliability on the subject.
“Of course, nothing wrong with scientists taking their best SWAG at what is currently unknowable, but we should not give such notions more credit than they deserve.”
Or less credit than they deserve. It is now well demonstrated that the fundamental elements and the fundamental amino acids are present throughout interstellar space and the Universe. The means by which they are created in space is now understood. The next step up in complexity of the molecules from the amino acids to the peptide chains has now been established. Amino acids in meteorites are converted to peptides upon impact with the Earth. The remaining steps upwards in complexity to RNA, DNA, and cellular structures are under intensive research and show many encouraging signs of being solved in the not too distant future.
On a geological time scale, of course, meaning anytime now in the next few million years. ;-)