How can you chop the continuous process of water from the "formation of water" to the "action of water as we observe it" into seperate blocks and attribute separate blocks to different theories?
See how silly the argument sounds now?
I've already answered this question; there is no contingency between the theory of Evolution and the Theory of Life Origin, so long as the Theory of Life Origin explains the existence of biology compatible with evolutionary processes, for precisely the same reason that hydrology isn't contingent upon what explanation is correct for the origin of water. Putting blinders over your eyes and ears doesn't change this.
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage.
Water has no component like this that is comparable.
Biophysicist Hubert P. Yockey makes the unique observation that "there is nothing in the physico-chemical world [apart from life] that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from non-living matter." (Computers and Chemistry, 24 (2000) 105-123). This may well constitute the most concise and parsimonious dichotomization of animacy from inanimacy available in the literature.
In addition to the unique component issue there is vast difference in complexity, it's like comparing the space shuttle to a 2x4. This is why I don't think it is a good analogy, it *is* an analogy, I can see that, but there has to be better one.