Modern spontaneous generation is discounted. If primitive life were to appear today, it wouldn't stand a chance in competition with already evolved life forms.
No there is speculation by some, not many, that RNA preceded DNA. Here's Wiki on RNA World
The article is rather unbalanced; I suspect much of it was written by an anti-RNA person, and possibly an IDer. For example it quote-mines Gerald Joyce to make it appear that he is anti-RNA world, when in fact he's one of its biggest protagonists. As with most quote-mining, any identification of a current issue with a scientific theory will be seized on, and quoted out of context to try to misrepresent the quotes author as believing the opposite of what he actually believes. It does not mention the obvious counterarguments: that DNA nucleotides are actually synthesized from RNA nucleotides by an unusual and complex enzyme; that RNA is directly involved in protein synthesis; that there are RNA-based lifeforms and long-lasting RNA in the cell (in the riobosome, for example); and that the oldest cellular constituents are RNA.
Few people believe life originated with RNA world; the problem is, there are as yet few identified chemical relics of anything earlier. But we're working on it. In contrast, all ID can say is 'gee, it's complex; something really really smart and really really powerful (wink wink) must have done it'.
Wink-wink placemarker.
And there is no problem with that, but at what point do you give up?
In contrast, all ID can say is 'gee, it's complex; something really really smart and really really powerful (wink wink) must have done it'.
No, what ID says is that the most rational belief is the belief in a designer. There are plenty of reasons not to believe in an RNA world -- RNA is delicate etc. -- but you do. What reason do you have for this?