[Loc123]

Don't think I arrived at this conclusion after looking at a mere smattering of journalistic headlines; I have been interested in the area of origins for 5 years.

I would seriously contend your notion that the "consensus" is that life originated on Earth--I was not making up those gigantic hexes that plague this theory. From what I've heard (based on many non-fringe articles), is that Earthly abiogenesis is at a wall and therefore the extra-terrestrial seeding notion is the primary theory at this moment (mostly due the the chirality conundrum I mentioned before).

Even if you don't agree that the mainstream of thought is for extraterrestrial, at least admit a significant minority is (after all, we have no statistical evidence, only anecdotal).

[js1138]

Panspermia is a rational conjecture, considering that space is full of organic molecules. It has nothing to do with the process of evolution, however, and it is just a conjecture.

[donh]

Even if you don't agree that the mainstream of thought is for extraterrestrial, at least admit a significant minority is

Did I not just do so?

[donh]

is that Earthly abiogenesis is at a wall and therefore the extra-terrestrial seeding notion is the primary theory at this moment (mostly due the the chirality conundrum I mentioned before).

No, it is not "at a wall" not for chirality, or any of the "life takes too long" arguments. Mutational clocks could have been moving faster, or slower before mutation was the right thing to call what was going on. We could be way wrong about exactly where, on or in the planet, biogenesis took place. panspermia is a hot conjecture, but that's all it is at the moment. You have to discount the "oops, dropped the beaker" factor before you go looking seriously for explanations for anomolies outside the present paradigm.