Agreed. I am an evolutionist, but not an abiogenecist. The third letter of the DNA XXX codon is very interesting. It is organized around a very methodical progression heuristic, which could not have been imbued by polarity, handedness, molecule scaffolding or hydrophobicity or any other direct chemical influence. Yes there is method to the assignment of the 2nd letter of the codon (3 RNA/DNA nucleotides, or a 'word' of DNA equating to a protein) based upon the corresponding protein molecule complexity (as specified in PubChem). Plus, the third letter is critical in the most ancient of life on this planet - which runs against evolution's prediction that a 2 codon life was necessary for a significant period of time.
There are 64 logical permutations, 4 of them operands (an amino start and 3 logical stops), and 60 of them assigned to the 20 proteins besides methionine (the start amino acid).
Now while this does not completely falsify abiogenesis, it does introduce magic into its epistemology - rendering it a pseudo-hypothesis at the moment, because we are not examining its critical path magical claim as we should. Graphic is from
Embargo of the Necessary Alternative is Not Science
The idea that life might have arrived here from somewhere else, very early on in Earth's existence (3.9 - 4.2 Bya) is right now an Embargo Hypothesis. That means, someone is afraid.
I've read the post on your blog from which the chart you include comes. I've also read the conversation that follows it in the comments, and I see that I am not alone in finding your prose rather too dense. That doesn't mean that I think you're talking nonsense, more that the density makes it very hard to understand what you are trying to say. This frustrates me because it makes having any kind of conversation almost impossible.
I suspect I could understand better if you tried a little harder to make your meaning clear -- please don't think I'm being pejorative, rather just honest and descriptive. I presume you want to put across your ideas and want to discuss them, but as it is, you might be talking mainly to an audience of one -- yourself.
That said, what I get from your post is that it's abiogenesis vs. panspermia. You seem to imply that abiogenesis refers to something that happened
on earth within a relatively short time period at the beginning of its current consensually accepted age (around 4bn years). However, as I see it, abiogenesis doesn't need to be restricted to earth; it could have happened elsewhere in the universe, and panspermia would then be just a mechanism of dissemination. Hence -- and again as I see it -- they aren't alternative theories. You're looking at the one theory and (I think) favouring one shade of interpretation (panspermia) to another (earth-based origin of life).
The real question for me is whether there's been enough time (according to the current consensually accepted estimate, which may or may not be so) for abiogenesis (and subsequent dissemination to earth) to have happened anywhere in the entire universe. 13 bn years is only about three times as long as the putative age of the earth, and if abiogenesis happened elsewhere, the implication is that it happened in the first 9 billion years -- not a huge difference from 4bn years available for it on earth, and not in my view near enough. If you have time, watch this illuminating video from one of the world's best synthetic organic chemists, James Tour:
I don't accept his religious (Jewish/semi-Christian) or philosophical (dualistic) stance, but he makes it plain just how difficult it is for conscious agents like us to play with advanced chemistry, let alone blind mechanism in a mere 9-billion-year time period.
You also seem to be separating the concepts of abiogenesis and evolution. But I'd say that abiogenesis makes no sense unless it prepares the ground for evolution. When is abiogenesis completed? Only when the first living organisms, presumably the archaea/bacteria (prokaryotes, which lack a membrane-bound nucleus) are produced. Bacteria are by no means simple; they are incredibly complex -- far more than a bunch of chemicals that could have fortuitously come to exhibit the properties of living organisms.
There are many species of bacteria, each with different characteristics. Maybe the proposition is that bacteria originated with the one species, and evolution subsequently began to work on it to produce many species; and later, eukaryotic (containing a membrane-bound nucleus) unicells and eventually eukaryotic multicellular organisms. But if so, the original species of bacterium still had to be alive and exhibit all the usual criteria of life -- reproduction, nutrition, elimination, reactivity, and so on. At what stage was the boundary between non-life and life transcended? Is there anything that looks like it that could represent an intermediary stage? Not viruses, methinks, because they depend for their existence and propagation on living cells; I suspect they appeared after the first living cell rather than before it.
If there is something that is intermediate, I'm not aware of it. There seems a stark contrast between even the most complex non-living, and the most simple living, systems. They're about as far apart in complexity as one can imagine. At the risk of using a hackneyed phrase, the leap from non-living to living seems like a quantum one. So much so that the leaps from unicellular prokaryotes to unicellular eukaryotes to multicellular eukaryotes seem fairly trivial by comparison. So in truth I wonder if one can separate abiogenesis from evolution, or whether it's all part of the one progression.