> It would indicate that, but it's also somewhat expected if we're around to make that observation, which tempers how much information we can take away from it.

Life could have arisen on Earth much later than it did and we could still have been around to see it (or if not us, something like us) so the anthropic principle doesn't apply here. The fact that it arose so early is meaningful.

It is, but it's also sample size of 1. So yes, it indicates something but the confidence interval is really wide. Still, like you point out it's not meaningless as some people do try to argue.

If you take a bayesian approach to the problem it's far more likely that abiogenesis is common. This youtube video does a great job of explaining it: https://youtu.be/iLbbpRYRW5Y