True... but you were discussing abiogenesis... and you were suggesting that Crick supported a version of panspermia along the lines of what you propose... and that is not the case. You have a top down sort of theory regarding life on earth. Francis Crick definitely had a bottom up view-- not one involving any sort of "intelligence"...
I'm sure Crick would have been increasingly convinced like most biologists that life on this planet likely started here... there is not a need to invoke an outside source. It could have happened... but that's still an abyss away from it happening for a "reason" or part of a "plan" which is what you believe happened. You see "unfathomable odds" and it suggests a designer to you.
To me Art', the mystery is more encompassing than the cause of biological origins. I recall that in a past thread you would use the term "design" with regard to the process of evolution. So what does that word "design" mean? It need not be a word with bad connotation. You attribute the design of biological systems to
something, you just don't think it is anything but "bottom up" (as I've seen you tirelessly express). You believe any appearance of "top down" or "planning" is mere illusion. Perhaps. I've been there before so it is not an alien world-view to me. My allowing myself to consider that "bottom up" is possibly false is due to my observation that we know so little about what mechanism lies at the "bottom". Below the molecular level the quantum world appears to be separate from our macroscopic world. The quantum world is a world of potentialities; the universe doesn't provide a solid "result" unless it has to. It is very strange "down there" in the world at the "bottom". So while you have faith that there is sufficient ingredients at work at the bottom to conjure up something so astonishing as DNA, RNA and the protein molecules that are necessary to machinate between them in order for them to have function (sans purpose), I
do not have so much faith. I am a skeptic with regard to the idea that the bottom up mechanisms at work at the dawn of meta-life had enough time in a mere few billion years. You have faith, with no evidence. You are guessing just as I am guessing. But in this forum, there exists a prejudice against my skepticism. Skepticism here is not omnidirectional, it blows in one direction. It is not open. But true science is not like that...science is tentative and there is nothing in science that yet guarantees no teleology... science ignores the possibility of teleology by axiom.
The exciting thing I hope I live to see discovered, is how
we design. How do
we create? Do we have something like a selection landscape in our neural network? Do we have a random generator that passes random thoughts through the selection process? At the root of our
neural selection process, is there no real purpose? No... I think all would admit we create via a top-down process. We plan. We have goals. Our mere 10^11 synapses are sufficiently complex to be able to do that, if you believe the neural network is all that is necessary to support our minds (and you are not some kind of dualist).
So the broader question to me is: what is "creation" and what is "design"? We know it exists. We do it. It is a self-revealing thing and we know we do it. We just don't know
how we do it. So until we know how
we do it, the jury is out on how complex the natural mechanism is that does it. I doubt it is as simple as anything yet put forward eg: RM/NS or autocatyltic sets.
. 
