Far from "smoking gun", the alleged evidence consists entirely of a theoretical problem with the (theoretical) formation of life on Earth. But, it's a BIG planet and life only needs one spot to get itself going. The 'Mars origin' theory still has zero evidence to support it.

I have to agree with piperTom... it sounds far fetched and even if conditions were difficult and rare, these conditions were not impossible and therefor may have been enough. It's a pity that I think its only a matter of time before we accidentaly contaminate Mars, and i would be seriosuly surprised if we haven't already.... actually, if we haven't already contaminated Mars, it kind of weakens the theory of how some life can survive the trip.. especially given that the landers had a comparitavley soft friendly ride compared to the proposed explosive launch from mars, the trip through space along with all the cosmic radiation, then the violent reentry and horrific planetry impact... wow... i know we 'steralise' everything.. but seriously, you can't keep out every spore time after time through every step.

I like my theory that all binary stars are nursing mothers and once the infant leaves the nursery orbit to occupy the first orbit it would force all other occupants to do the same. Pauli's Exclusion Principle perhaps.
That means when Mercury left mummy's side everything that was on the surface of Mars was left in that orbit while the naked Mars was flung to where he is now, cold and angry. Broad breasted Gaia jumped in and scooped up all the RNA etc just the same as Mars did after Jupiter vacated.
So therefore we could all be Jupits. Maybe that's our problem, we are all a bit jupit.
Sounds feasible to me.

This theory limits human life to a extremely small chances of any type of life as we know it in the universe. Think of the odds of a small or large meteorite blowing off of Mars and finding another planet like ours, landing on it and then starting.. life. What do you think the odds are 1 in 100 to the power of infinity. In other words, none. So, with that in mind are we alone?

"Analysis of a Martian meteorite recently showed that there was boron on Mars," says Benner. "We now believe that the oxidized form of molybdenum was there too. In addition, recent studies show that these conditions suitable for the origin of life may still exist on Mars."
My question is, do they believe that the oxidized form of molybdenum was present just so that it fits their model of life originating on Mars?
Stating "we believe" without supporting evidence is about as unscientific a statement as you can make.

What if only the Borate, etc, on those meteorites came trough, and crashed where it could make a difference, on Earth? Wouldn't that facilitate life beginning, but still here on, Earth?

It does seem "stretched" and it does look like the universe is "playing pool"...however: The universe is vast and that's considering the small part of it that we have knowledge of... and we still have found no other life forms (at least officially...not trying to fire up x-files fan club here)... so that means, so far, we (life on earth with a species that has considerable intelligence...or at least with some specimens that have some...can't really go global here) are the most illogical, improbable, happening in the universe. So with all that in mind can we be arrogant enough to rule out a theory immediately because it seems "stretched"? That is dis-considering the fact that we are in fact primitive and limited in knowledge of how the universe truly is and works, and dis-considering the fact that the "string theory" could be true, and dis-considering the fact that we could be limited in analysis by our own dimensional limitation.
It could happen... a big pool game where the rock we now call moon scratches mars and then looses the momentum on it's final earth rubbing, being laid to rest at the orbit of it, but leaving bacteria proliferating in a ocean that looked more like a nutrient soup than actual water...and probably with a less aggressive protective atmosphere still being formed. It could be as simple as a contamination! E.T. went to Mars on vacation, stepped on a couple of bacteria, then on its way home decided to drop by at earth for a quick swim... or just for photos... or maybe to collect samples...or maybe to experiment, dropping some mars rocks on to it's oceans...or they just crashed. Maybe this is something done by someone/thing from another dimension... the example from Carl Sagan explaining the shock that a 2 dimensional being (the sheet of paper) would have when a 3rd dimensional being grabs his friend (the sheet of paper nr 2) from point A and places it in point B is something that comes to mind. In the example, Carl Sagan (the 3 dimensional being) grabs sheet of paper nr 1 and drops it 20 cms apart from where it was. In the eyes of the 3d being this seems simple grab and drop, but the 2d being sheet of paper nr 2, his friend just disappeared and magically re-appeared 20cm apart! I mean... every 2d sheet of paper being he reports his happening to will think this is "stretched".
My point is... a lot could happen that could help explain this "crazy" theory....and the worse thing is that there are probably even more weird ways of explaining it that we don't even know of, and we may still be years/ages away from having that knowledge.
Anyway, judging by the princess of mars from John Carter, I honestly am ALL in favor of the theory...that's some quality DNA folks ;) Just hope the asteroid rubbed her instead of the green guys with 4 arms!!!

The theory 'The mathematics of evolution' shows that every planet of our ´Solar System´ is a isolated system with its proper life. So Mars had its destiny and after was the time to Earth, It is possible that Venus will be the next to have life. In each system (planet) things will be something different. May be in the next future we can learn something from Mars (that comes first of ours) to direct our life to the correct way.

"Evidence" is proof so why is it still called a theory?

@donwine There are a lot of misconceptions about what "theory" is in a scientific context. In common usage, theory is used like "guess" but inScience it has a much deeper meaning. Example: We witness things fall to the ground if we drop them. That's a fact because it's a publicly observable, repeatable phenomenon. We hypothesize that mass attracts other mass. We test it by looking for evidence and we discover that it does. The hypothesis is then published in a scientific journal and other scientists try to prove it's wrong by a process known as "falsification". If no one can falsify it, then eventually it will become a theory, the highest form of proof available outside of mathematics. In that sense a scientific theory is practically a fact. Occasionally problems are discovered in theories. Newton almost got it right with his "laws" of motion but Einstein showed he was wrong at speeds approaching the speed of light. So even laws are subject to refinement but it's rare. If you treat "theory" as "fact" you will seldom get it wrong.