abiogenesis

I think either two cases of abiogenesis or a solid case of panspermia would be pretty wild, for their own reasons.

No, it's an intellectually honest view of abiogenesis, which is not the same thing as evolution at all.

The chance to study live from an independent instance of abiogenesis.. I just can't find the words to describe how important that would be.

Now you want to jump in and declare a subject change, drawing distinctions between evolution and abiogenesis?

Panspermia is cool, but two instances of abiogenesis in a single solar system?

We basically have one shot, per body in the solar system, to find an example of life with an independent abiogenesis point.

Did it just find an example of convergent abiogenesis and evolution?

When I see Tour conflate the discussion of evolution with abiogenesis, however, I lose all hope for the quality of such a debate.

You would need to completely sterilize the environment to have a shot at witnessing abiogenesis again.

The meager evidence we have seems to suggest that life on Earth originated in abiogenesis, not panspermia.

These happened by random chance at the beginning instances of abiogenesis, and were replicated faithfully since.

Furthermore, two instances of life with the same abiogenesis point, isolated and diverged sometime in the past, would be very valuable for biologists.

There may have been multiple abiogenesis events, but life on earth stemming from other abiogenesis events has either died out, merged so as to be functionally indistinguishable, or has not been discovered.

There is some more information in Wikipedia, under abiogenesis and homochirality.

However, since all evidence suggests the universe had a beginning, between abiogenesis, evolution, and the universe/galaxy/planet being in a state hospitable to life, it might always take a very long time to get the state we're in now, just as it did on this planet.