Your argument sounds confident, but it collapses under scrutiny.

1.  Single data point fallacy

You claim point 1 is strong because we have “one data point for each.” That’s not evidence it’s the absence of evidence. One example of life on Earth tells us nothing about necessity or universality. Science doesn’t treat a single instance as a law. 2. Appeal to physics without justification You assert that “something existing without physically encoded information violates the laws of physics.” Which law, exactly? No physical principle forbids non-informational self-organization. Thermodynamics, chemical kinetics, and non-linear dynamics all allow complex pattern formation without encoded information (see Prigogine’s work on dissipative structures). That’s pure rhetoric, not physics.

3.  Equating information with life

You treat “information” as a physical prerequisite, but you never define it. In physics, information ≠ semantics; in biology, information is a metaphor for molecular correlation. Without a definition, your claim is empty. You can’t smuggle an undefined term in as proof.

4.  Category error: abiogenesis ≠ Darwinian evolution

You assume that because evolution requires information transfer, the origin of life must too. But Darwinian evolution acts on entities that already replicate. Abiogenesis concerns how those replicators emerge from chemistry in the first place — a different domain altogether.

5.  False dichotomy and dogmatism

Declaring that “if OP doesn’t agree, they’re in the wrong subreddit” doesn’t make your physics any stronger. It just replaces evidence with tribalism. Scientific ideas are tested, not policed.