The definitions of "fallacy of exclusion" I find contain this statement:
Note that it is not sufficient simply to show that not all of the evidence was included; it must be shown that the missing evidence is relevant to the conclusion.You have not shown that information about where the first life forms came from is relevant to what happened after that. (Insisting is not showing.)
Do you think that's why I said, "Unless you identify which biological systems you believe spontaneously generated themselves, you are committing the fallacy of exclusion.", hmmm?
It all depends on what you define as a 'first life form' and what biological systems that alleged life form would have that were spontaneously generated without evolution. If any selection is involved in the appearance of this first 'life form', then evolution was involved and the fallacy of exclusion applies.
You really thought that through before you responded, didn't you?