But you aren't giving us a complicated series of events. You are giving us one of the least complicated events, as in a puff of smoke and suddenly appears a species.
Where in any of my posts have I ever in anyway implied that a species suddenly appears out of a puff of smoke? This is absurd.
The evidence indicates that they did evolve from a common ancestor. Kinds should be easy to define since they don't share common ancestry.
They could very well share a common ancestry, I don't know. I don't really care. The point is that it is a common design in which all living forms are related. In fact, there were many components that would have been able to be used and in a random non-intelligent process it would seem more likely that some of the other elements available could have been utilized rather than the fixed ones we see in all life forms. It makes more sense from a design point of view that this is the case.
You have evidence to support such an event may have occurred. You however have no evidence of the universal common ancestor. The evidence can be viewed as common ancestry and it may even be the case. One can assume based on a naturalistic worldview that this common ancestry is:
1. Created using only certain elements available while there was a multitude of equally available ones suitable for life.
2. That only common decent alone explains the fact that life is common in design.
3. That there is no other reason but for common decent for life forms to be grouped in a nested hierarchy.
Considering these three (I hope agreeable statements) we look at the presuppositions that must be made to conclude that these statements reflect the truth.
1. We must conclude a priori that life could have only come into existence from a natural cause. We need an a priori presupposition to make this statement. There is no reason to believe by observation that a common ancestor even ever existed. How do we actually "know" that there was anything prior to the earliest life forms that we see from the fossil evidence we have?
2. Evidence may support the concept of common decent but the concept itself is based on certain presuppositions. The first is that common decent is the only possible way to explain the evidence. Have we considered all possible causes? When we look at Epigenesis we see new discoveries that may challenge the nested hierarchy. Horizontal transfer and other perhaps unknown factors could be found that would cause this system to either be revised by the new information or be completely renewed, which happens in science as it did with the tree of life.
In using the nest hierarchy one must also look at those non-nested trees as well. It can not be said that all living organisms fit into nested trees.
3. If it is true that only common decent explains the nested hierarchy. We must presuppose that there is no other explanation and without knowing all possible causes we can't say with total certainty that there would be no other cause. If common decent explains nested hierarchy we would assume that there would be no inconsistencies or anomalies if the decent is fixed. If true, we should see molecular evidence to substantiate the system but actually one must invoke molecular clocks, which in themselves are a problem.
I do have evidence for a universal common ancestor for all life:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
You have evidence that when presupposing certain aspects can support a universal common ancestor.
You can not describe for me a shared genetic marker or fossil that would change your mind. You can not tell me how common design is falsifiable.
Change my mind about what exactly?
If it could be shown that life was totally random and without limits to design, it would falsify design.
Do you know of a way to delete it?
