Is the natualist hypothesis more likely than the ID hypothesis? No, if cells did not have a single common biologic ancestor ID is more likely. Two of the three cell types show up as soon as Earth cools down enough to allow them (after asteriod shower about 3.6 bya). The other may have been there, but not quite in its current form.
The crux of my point is this : If the mythical pre-biotic 'soup' naturalistically produced not one but three separate cells in a geologically insignificant amount of time, then why have origin of life experiments hit one brick way after another since Urey-Miller?
I am not asking you to 'see the light'. I am just asking you to acknowledge that the lack of common biologic origin despite interchangability of some parts and quick arrival time all make ID a little bit more likely. Are either of you willing to concede even that much?
I don't suppose you've come to the realization yet that whatever science turns up with empirical support would be slam-dunk evidence for ID.
If they were truly 3 unrelated origins, they would have had 3 different forms of basic triplet coding, each to a differing set of Amino acids. If, in fact, they even used the same fundamental DNA paradigm. Truly independent evolution would mean they could'nt usefully eat each other--clearly not the case.
As to being evidence for ID, even if this were as you stated, it is no more compelling evidence for ID than than for some other form of earthbased abiogensis we haven't thought of yet. Your threshold of evidence is set way too low to bust the current paradigm. If ID wants attention, ID better predict some positive event other than that evolutionary theory will fail to be perfect--being a natural science, that's a given. Pointing to unfilled knowledge holes in the current paradigm is the easy half of the battle--no evidence of the hard half being fought has yet come to my attention. Please use ID theory to predict some major positive material event that comes to pass, such as green aliens landing to harvest what they planted 4 billion years ago, then ID will get everyone's respectful attention.
I suppose His proofs are everywhere for people so inclined, but you're reaching.
Its not a slam dunk, but it shows the facts are consistent with what would be expeceted if a common designer (interchangable parts) made several types of cells.
In Woese's idea, there's still a common ancestor of a sort; it just isn't a single, self-contained organism. It's the "RNA world." Search on it, read for five minues, and know as much as I do.
Read the first paragraph of the main article. Try not to just see what you want.