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.
None of which invalidates the point I made. Your argument is a non sequitor.
As long as a Theory of life origins explains how to get to the first life form, the Theory of Evolution explains how to get from THAT first life form to the diversity of species that have developed since that time. There's no dependency in the latter upon which theory we choose to explain the former; the theory of Evolution doesn't change depending upon how the first life form came into existence, just as the theory of Hydrology doesn't change depending upon how water came into existence.
Stuffing your fingers in your ears, covering your eyes, and waving rhetorical arguments about uniqueness and complexity around don't alter the fact that there is no dependency. If there were, you'd have pointed out the dependency long ago. You can't, because it doesn't exist.
All that Evolution needs to work is a population of some form of life that has heritable traits, variation of those traits, and a process like natural selection to act upon the population, and the games afoot. As long as the Theory of Origins explains a first life form that is compatible with what Evolution does, they are compatible with each other. Different theories of origin don't require any changes to the Theory of Evolution.
Example: assume that the first life form arose through some process of abiogenesis. The theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with with this. Now assume instead that the first life form was planted here on earth by (pick ONE, it doesn't matter): 1) space aliens or 2) a deity. In what way does the Theory of Evolution have to be modified to be compatible with either case?
The answer is: it doesn't. That's the point.
That's why The Theory of evolution is no more contingent upon the origin of life than Hydrology is contingent upon the origin of water. Both the origin of life and the origin of water represent fundamentally different processes from the mechanisms which operate upon those raw materials in accordance with Evolution and Hydrology, respectively.
That's why the origin of water is covered by a different theory than Hydrology, and that's why the origin of life is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution. Different processes, different phenomona, different theories.