What you personally suspect is neither here nor there - what matters is which interpretation is supported by the evidence. As you probably know, anthropoid primates all have the same genetic defect that causes a lack of the L-GLO enzyme, preventing them from synthesizing ascorbic acid. In this case, the hypothesis that the common defect is a result of common descent - inheritance from a common ancestor - is supported by what we already know about common descent through cladistics and the fossil record. What evidence is there to support the hypothesis that this common defect is actually the result of multiple discrete events, occurring in each and every species that exhibits the defect?
Sure wish I could collect £5 for every time I have seen this quote out of context. Just try google on the quote, and the first two pages of hits are from 'Creation Science' or similar websites.
But you have to find the original to get the balance of the paragraph, to wit:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.
My emphasis. The next paragraph goes on:
The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against. [(Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)]
Fabulous. Whether or not you accept them as evidence of common descent I trust I have now laid to rest your complaint that:
I have yet to see an evolutionist offer an "evidence" on FR that cannot be distilled on the simplistic template of "similarity in morphology is sufficient evidence for commonality of descent."
...the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle..." - Francis Crick, Nobel Laureate
Ignoring for the moment the dishonesty of this quote (exposed elsewhere on this thread), why do you think the method by which life first began affects the validity of the theory of evolution?