well, it may be a supernatural concept (which might not be pleasant to Occam's dsicriminating palate), but if allowed, it is certainly simpler than the idea of so many years and so many miniscule changes taking us from "goo-to-you," if you'll excuse the creationist humor.
You are, unbeknownst to you I'm sure, misquoting (or misimplying) Occam's Razor.
Often quoted as "The simplest answer is usually the correct one", what Occam Razor really says is: "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem)"
The key concept expressed is that if you have an answer that does not require an additional agent, then you shouldn't assume an additional agent at work.
Here's an example: I push the doorbell which makes a connection allowing electricity to flow to the "bell" device causing it to ring.
Entities required: Me, doorbell, internal device which makes a connection, electricity, wiring to connect to "bell device" and "bell device".
Here's a different take on it: I push the doorbell which makes a connection allowing electricity to flow to the "bell" device which then gets monitored by an invisible dwarf who always decides to ring the bell.
There's no need to invoke an "invisible dwarf" to answer the question.
In fact, invoking an "invisible dwarf" raises a whole new set of questions about this undetected agent.
Invoking a magical Jewish Wizard who is undetectable and uses undetectable forces to do things that we have not evidence occurred is likewise not a simpler solution.