Very interesting. Compare to Charles Darwin 1882 letter and hope of a general law of nature to describe how non-living matter, evolves into life.
To Daniel Mackintosh 28 February 1882, "...With respect to the main purport of your note I hardly know what to say.— Though no evidence worth anything has as yet in my opinion been advanced in favour of a living being, being developed from inorganic matter, yet I cannot avoid believing the possibility of this will be proved some day in accordance with the law of continuity3 I remember the time above 50 years ago when it was said that no substance found in a living plant or animal could be produced without the aid of vital forces!4 As far as external form is concerned Eozoon shows how difficult it is to distinguish between organised & unorganised bodies—5 If it is ever found that life can originate on this world, the vital phenomena will come under some general law of nature— Whether the existence of a conscious God can be proved from the existence of the so-called laws of nature (i.e. fixed sequence of events) is a perplexing subject, on which I have often thought, but cannot see my way clearly— If you have not read W. Graham’s “Creed of Science” it would I think interest you, & he supports the view which you are inclined to uphold.—6"
ref -https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-13711.xml&query=general%20law%20of%20nature#hit.rank1
"law of increasing functional information", does this law of nature now fit what Charles Darwin hoped for in 1882? Has this new law of science been tested like Newton's laws of motion or Kepler planetary laws for elliptical orbits or the law of gravity? IMO, seems quite a stretch here to present this as a law of science for abiogenesis or other interesting things in nature. Perhaps it is all summed up, *the law of stuff happens*