[majkinetor]

Yah, cell machinery is also complex yet it emerged number of times independently on this planet alone (convergent evolution).

> We don't really know the probability of abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is only one way to look at it. What about intelligent design ? Probability it is relevant is 100%, given that humans are one of those IDs already (created polio virus).

So again, most are having tunnel vision about this topic given our constraints and limitations on this planet.

[maze-le]

Ah, I see, abiogenesis is "tunnel vision", but unjustified belief in a deus ex machina which designed life is somehow enlightened...? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no evidence of god, therefore I don't have any confidence in the flying spaghetti monster.

>> Yah, cell machinery is also complex yet it emerged number of times independently on this planet alone

That's not even wrong. I don't even know where to begin refuting this claim -- so I just leave it there.

Sometimes it would do us some good to accept the fact that we just don't know it (yet). Yet alone considering the philosophical consequences of ID: who designed the designers? How did the first designers emerge? What were they made of (considering that the chemical abundance of the galactical environment was heavily skewerd towards lighter elements 4.5 Gy ago)?

In the meantime, I stick to the models that don't rely on an allmighty entity to bootstrap biological evolution.

[majkinetor]

> but unjustified belief in a deus ex machina which designed life is somehow enlightened...?

Humans are designers already, what more proof do you need: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2122619.stm

You are confusing ID with creationism. The later is one foolish and easily refutable variant of ID akin to Santa and other fairy tails.

> There is no evidence of god, therefore I don't have any confidence in the flying spaghetti monster.

Comparing life to another life is not the same as comparing life to superbeings.

> who designed the designers?

That is irrelevant for this topic. It didn't stop people researching big bang, did it ?

> In the meantime, I stick to the models that don't rely on an allmighty entity to bootstrap biological evolution

In the meantime, understand it doesn't have to be allmighty :) It can simply be another advanced enough life (remember that one about advanced tech compared to magic?). The topic is about UFOs, not about origin of life or origin of origin of origin ... of life.