Indeed all life came from a single cell , and intelligent design based evolution is not contradictory with Quran. What people find puzzeled about evolution is the complexity from such a small ingredients , but they forget the role the environment plays in structuring and guiding the complexity of life.

In the video above I think the question is of a sperate process of humans making , on the question of life from single cell , it is clear that DNA of humans and animals is not that different , we have more than 95 percent of genome similiar to monkey’s , and it shows the origins are similiar i.e life started from single cell , then the process is being debated , according to javed ghamidi the Quran seems to suggest that humans creation was a seperate process and evolution was not a Tree of life but a bush of life.

And indeed you would find scientists speak about bush of life rather than tree of life . I will link a video here

https://youtu.be/MXrYhINutuI Craig venter is a famous scientist and discovered RNA and human DNA portions

The example you described is of speciation and once an organisim , able and already adopted to the environment was there , and then changes in conditions etc produced changes in the organisim. What we are discussing is macro evolution , i.e the dogs into cats , and some monkey like thing to humans , and even very low in the tree , when primitive life forms were there , a single process of changes , with all the complexity we see around us , even in the amount of whole time of universe can not hold up like that .

This argument is simplification of the whole complexity of the problem by defeating vast number of environmental and natural changes that can work against that particular line of ancestor change , and making the time win . The basic premise of this theory is time , given enough time whatever environments or natural changes are the complexity will be observed by this random genetic single process. And the ultimate test of this will be an artificial or natural process that can produce this tree without stopping .

fossile records show similiarity , and then we imply that based on similiarity they must be same ancestor and a same process. What it does not show is how ? , ok you will say random mutations in genes , so show me a single model where a single process with fixed gene set can , not only evolves but sustains the way life did on earth. You can ask your teacher to show you a single simulation or model where it holds true . Answer is a single process can not do that , environements shape process and multiple processes can use the same functional blocks overtime , and can have similiarity , but binding them all up into one single narrow process and saying it just magically happens because we have so and so bone in the whale that is in the human , is not an answer , its an analogy.

If there was not a correct but even a plausible model that have been shown to achieve that , we would not have been debating the origins of life right now even amoung top researchers because the mystery would then be solved bottom to up and no room for any doubts.

Regarding antibiotic resistance, a single is so much complex it is an intelligent entity in itself , you can read about whole cell biology in this matter.

And DNA correlations can mean multiple things , and one of it is similiarity In processes. Again the complexity of life and origin of life , has been two biggest questions that show flaw in the conclusion scientists derive from similiar DNA , i.e same tree.

a single cell i meant . there is nothing special about reproduction , it is a functional block .

reproduction and DNA transfer through it can happen in both models .

what do you think about random mutation based model of evolution ? . Does in your view the fossil evidence , DNA similiarity, antibiotic resistance etc support that model ? .

so the fundamental difference in our opinion is that you think the examples you gave seems to support random mutation model of evolution and hence all are related etc.

My view is since random mutation model of evolution is unproven and in some sense proven wrong ( from complexity modelling etc ) , hence the examples you gave can have different explanations based on correct model .

yes related , but what kind of related , related in the same tree , same ancestor etc , or in some other way like have same dna , becuase process were similiar , and due to this reason the model is relevant in my view so that it can explain this.

you must include the model otherwise all you have is guessing.

Based on different model it can be different, that is the problem

until the correct model we can not say surely about this conclusion . you can take example from physics multiple models can explain the motion of planets, but in some edge cases they break down , and a new model comes which can explain all the edge cases but with different conclusions about the motion , hence untill we do not have correct model, we can not say that current conclusions are perfect.

it is needed , if correct model concludes this then it can be accepted , if not then no .