I repeat, the existence of ealy life on Earth is evidence that life originated on Earth. Evidence, as you well know, is not the same as proof. Evidence is an observation that is consistent with a particualr model or hypothesis. Therefore finding early life on Earth and not finding it in, for example, meteorites is evidence that life originated on Earth.
I do not need to proceed further than this, though my other two examples can also be defended. I have presented you with an instance that disproves your claim that "there is no evidence that the origin of Earthly life was on Earth."
I, for a variety of reasons, am sympathetic to pan spermia in general and the origin of life in dust and gas clouds specifically. The opportunity to persaude people to consider this possibility is greatly weakened when someone, like yourself, promotes the idea and simultaneously makes unwarranted claims of the type I have just dismissed here. If you cannot be objective in your presentation of the facts you will rightly be ignored.
Aha! Well then: I shouldnt for the sake of communication have accepted "evidence" as approximately the same as "scientific proof!".
What a useless concept! No amount of evidence for x assures us that x is true!
Evidence for x means only that x is possible! Do I understand the concept of "evidence" correctly now?
Will no english court of justice condemn the accused of a crime only because there is evidence that he did the crime?
Maybe english has a lot of nuances im not aware of, say: Is a claim warranted if evidence for it is given?
Reformulation of the thesis:
"There is yet no scientific proof that the origin of any planetary life was on any planet"
for a variety of reasons, am sympathetic to pan spermia in general and the origin of life in dust and gas clouds specifically.
Sometimes one should try the strategy of asking questions:
1 Since even the founder of the pan spermi hypothesis assumed that the life on Earth originated on some other planet,
shouldnt a new name be given to theories that claim that the necessary conditions for life is rarely found on planets?
2 Are there areas within a dustcloud becoming a stellar system where the conditions are acceptable for producing life?
3 Does not such a cloud originally consist lots of frozen water among other things?
4 Will not,somehow, most frozen ice get covered by pre biotic substances?
5 Are there not relatively large, compared to planets, volumes where temperature and pressure are sufficient to melt water?
6 will that water form "drops" containg the molecules previously on the frozen surfaces.
7 Is it probable that radiation will effect the molecules in the water drops?
8 will this volume contain many drops for a long time?
9 Is it possible that autocatalysis, radiation and self organisation will produce more complex molecules within the drops?
10 Is this a description of a possible situation for an origin on life?
11 If so can this situation occur on any planet?