I don't explain the argument from functional redundancy of ubiquitous genes for the simple reason that a single happening is not the be all and end all of life. it is nothing more than a "gotcha" statement to try and justify your weird take on things.
You clearly haven't read and understood the evidence. There is no way that ubiquitous genes can be described as a 'single happening', there are very many of them, and they are in all of us. This is a typical creationist attempt to dismiss evidence without addressing the evidence in any way.
Perhaps you would like to tell me how life began? If you are an atheist that believes in evolution that should be an easy question to answer.
As is well known, we (as in humanity) do not know how life began. That doesn't mean that we should just make stuff up and believe it to be true. It is important for us to be aware of what we know and what we don't know, and one thing we don't know and how life began is one thing we don't know. There are different theories, e..g. Biblical creation or the RNA world, which live or die on their own merits. Biblical creation is falsified by evolution, so that one is ruled out. Other theories remain plausible.
Judging by your last question you are just another lazy atheist who refuses to do your own homework. There is so much evidence out there that the mind boggles. The only ones who do not see it are those that don't want to see it like the head atheist honcho here in Australia. He wrote an article in which he said miracles do not happen, which I happened to read. I sent him details of miracles that have happened. You know time, place, people involved, their phone number etc. Did he follow up on it all? Not on your life. He was happy in his ignorance and lies.
A few weeks ago we were told of young man who had been bashed in a fight and had hit his head on the ground and suffered brain damage. The hospital's prognosis was that he would be a vegetable for the rest of his life. God spoke to me and told me to go and pray for him. I went and took two of my Christian bothers with me. The hospital and the young man's parents welcomed our offer of prayer. We prayed and laid hands on him and put a prayer cloth under his pillow to continue the healing process. Our last report from the hospital is that he has regained consciousness is sitting up and talking.
That is objective evidence but I don't expect you to acknowledge the fact as you don't want evidence you want an argument.
I do want evidence and it is reasonable that you have given some. But, we have to see if it is possible that this occurrenced happened by natural means. A quick check will show that people with brain injuries do frequently wake up. E.g.
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/brain-injury-patient-wakes-sedative-article-1.2047561
There has been quite a lot of evidence that diagnosis of persistent vegetative state is often wrong. E.g. see this disussion:
http://discovermagazine.com/2011/mar/09-turning-vegetables-back-into-humans
Just a few years ago, a patient like Kellie would have been written off. Anyone who did not regain consciousness within a few weeks after a stroke or head injury was said to have no hope for meaningful improvement. But in the past decade, a series of increasingly spectacular experiments conducted by Giacino and Weill Cornell Medical Center neurologist
Nicholas Schiff has proved that this bleak verdict is often wrong.
The semiconscious brain is not a useless sack of neural goo, they have shown, and not all damaged brains are the same. Disorders of consciousness come in shades of gray, from severely impaired “vegetative states” to the perplexing “minimally conscious state” in which people slip into and out of awareness. By studying patients who emerge into consciousness after years in limbo, Schiff and Giacino have shown that the brain can sometimes fix itself even decades after damage. They have discovered apparently vegetative people whose minds can still imagine, still recognize, still respond. In turn, these profoundly disabled people have opened the door to one of the last great mysteries of science: the nature of consciousness.
Now, if you could show that prayer reliably and well above chance led to recovery from persistant vegetative state, then you would have evidence for God. About 66% of people in persistant vegetative state will die, and about 33% will recover. Are these 66% less likely to be prayed for than the 33%? Otherwise, your example above could simply be randomly one of the 33%.
Note, I'm not dismissing your evidence here. I"m just pointing out why it isn't strong evidence for God. And I'm pointing out what you need to do in order to make your evidence stronger. (Or disprove)
There has already been one experiment (at least) on the power of prayer. It found that people prayed for on average did not receive benefit compared to people who weren't prayed for.
A few weeks ago some of our young people went to Africa with one of our evangelists who specialises in healing. The young people got involved in the prayer for healing. Here is one story a young man told us at the meeting on Sunday. A man came forward and held out his hand. His fingers of one hand were all pointing back at him. They had been like that since birth. He lifted the man's hand up and as he prayed, the fingers unfurled and went out straight as normal.
That is objective evidence but I don't expect you to acknowledge it as you don't want evidence you want an argument.
Another young lady who had been deaf from birth was presented to a young lady in the team for prayer. She prayed for her and she heard for the first time.
There are many, many, claims of success by faith healing. However, when it is actually investigated in a robust way, it is found to be ineffective. You have heard a claim by someone who claimed to see a miracle. This is pretty much a classic example of hearsay.
If there were such miracles, then they should be very easy to verify. You could have the medical issues investigated before the faith healing event by qualified docotors. You could then have the faith healing event. And you could then have the cures validated by qualified doctors after the event. If all the claims of faith healing were true, then it would be trivial to establish its truth. Can you point me to any such study and its successful repitition showing that faith healing works, or is all you've got this hearsay? Note that it's important to confirm the medical condition before 'healing' as some cases of 'healing' have proved to be cases where the disease never existed in the first place. Other claimed improvements occur due to stress therapy - put the person into stress and the brain releases endorphins and other chemicals that reduce pain. Does the pain stay reduced when the person has fully calmed down?
As with the persistant vegetative state example, people do experience spontaneous remission or cure of medical problem, even when medical predictions are that this won't happen. With cancer for example, this is rare, and the evidence is that it happens through the immune system (though we don't understand exactly why and how).
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/sep/the-body-can-stave-off-terminal-cancer-sometimes Because these remissions happen, it's important to separate remissions due to faith healing and remissions that may have occurred for a different reason.
If faith healing works billions around the world could be cured by the hand of God. Shouldn't that make it vitally important that faith healing submits itself to scientific measure and demonstrates that it works? The experiments are easy if there is any practically significant effect of faith healing.
That is objective evidence but I don't expect you to acknowledge it as you don't want evidence you want an argument. As I said there is plenty of evidence out there but cynicism and self righteousness prevents you from seeing any of it. If it doesn't fit in with your gospel according to scientific papers you are all at sea and unable to face reality.
I want strong objective evidence. I've been clear here to describe exactly what sort of evidence I want. What I don't want is hearsay or evidence that has alternate, natural, explanations. You've made a first step, but I've described why your evidence isn't strong, and described what sort of evidence would be stronger.
Note also that I have seriously addressed my evidence. At the top, you attempt to just dismiss my evidence of common descent without anything resembling a proper investigation of the evidence I provided.
-- Ahem ... sorry ... carry on.
