If panspermia is true, I think it’s most likely life evolved on a planet orbiting a star. It just seems to me that the energy availability and chances of having liquid water are more conducive.
That planet then was destroyed or fragments broken off, scattering life enriched matter into star forming nebulae. This seeded more planets, which then broke up scattering more life enriched matter. After several cycles of this you’d end up with life, or at least sophisticated organic molecule enriched matter all over the galaxy.
>It just seems to me that the energy availability and chances of having liquid water are more conducive.
It seems to me the very concept of a "habitable zone" tends to imply liquid water on the surface of a planet is implausible/rare. There's a whole bunch of additional requirements besides distance and temperature, which some people think makes life in red dwarf systems doubtful, and even looking at earth's history, surface dwelling life seems precarious with all the extinction events.
And we have Enceladus as an example of the alternative. There must be orders of magnitude more bodies like this, with undersea oceans and some internal warmth, than bodies with surface conditions conducive to life. Perhaps life needs an environment like earth to develop fully, but if 99.x% of the potential habitat for the most basic life is indifferent to our particular conditions, then it seems to me overwhelmingly likely that's where it started.
That planet then was destroyed or fragments broken off, scattering life enriched matter into star forming nebulae. This seeded more planets, which then broke up scattering more life enriched matter. After several cycles of this you’d end up with life, or at least sophisticated organic molecule enriched matter all over the galaxy.