What evidence is there that humans completely came about naturally?

Biological evolution is our best supported scientific theory but it sounds as though you don't really understand what evolution is and what it is not. In addition we know that all religions, as well as the supernatural, are false. So actually there is NO evidence that we are not natural...

I suppose you're going to tell us that the evidence against life having come about naturally is the current uncertainty over how life came about naturally.

Check out  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvKt5uFUsTM 

There is no "magic man" or "genie" either.

So, we look around & first analyze what we are composed of...most of the elements found on Earth. We are "not made" of something NOT found on earth.

Yes, the building blocks for life started from rocks.  They will form into RNA say by being dissolved by acid rain(which happen around volcanoes erupting) That is what happens and many years go by of self replicating RNA happen before the first DNA happens. It is like playing Lottery numbers.  Sooner or later you hit all of them, or close to so you get a partial win.

. If you want to listen to someone who knows and can explain better than I can check on YT for "aaron Ra"

. He has a cool website.  Yes double "a".  He is into the science stuff.  He may look like a burly biker type but he knows his stuff.  

. For some reason he wears a suit now(which really looks weird on him) but anyways he has many YT videos.  It would be best for you to click on the CC button because some of those words are difficult to spell.

He would seem like the type that would swear and rant and rave. But he could watch Paint Dry...he has that patience.

Makes it so much more believable if you say an invisible being poofed us into being and the abiogenesis has been shown possible through experiments 70 years or more ago 

Actually, there is evidence for a plausible mechanism, but scientific debate about the specific details is ongoing.   So YOU don't like that one?  OK, so what evidence do you have for an alternative origin ?  Don't trash the available hypothesis without telling us the alternative.

You're asking for the equivalent of multiple textbooks'-worth of information from various fields--physics, chemistry, biochemistry, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, physiology, plus more recent results in the current scientific literature that won't be in the textbooks for another 20-50 years.  You're not going to get any of that here, and I won't even start, because from the tone of your question, you wouldn't understand any of it.  Instead, I have to take you back to the very basics--

Four hundred years of experience has demonstrated that the only proven, reliable tool we have for investigating questions about the world around us and our place in it is science.  Science is strictly dependent upon methodological naturalism--meaning that it was devised--invented--by humans to address specific questions about the natural world.  As such, it can ONLY address natural causation, because natural causation is the only kind of causation that can be observed/tested/experimented upon and evaluated using either our own physical senses or via amplification of those senses through the use of improved technology.  Inferences about the world are then made based on the results of those findings, and hypotheses arising from those inferences can then be further tested.  So science is limited to examining natural causation, because the only means we have available to us are physical, natural ones.

There's a huge difference between the respective approaches of methodological naturalism (described above) versus philosophical naturalism--the latter assumes that the natural is all that exists, and that the supernatural does not exist.  Science makes no such assumption, and takes no position on the existence of the supernatural.  Instead, it restricts its effort to questions that it CAN address--natural causation.

So, the ONLY evidence available to us from science suggests that whatever the precise mechanism was (and that's not known yet), as far as we can tell, natural means were, are, and have always been sufficient to explain our origins.  And the evidence from science is the only evidence we have.  Evidence of supernatural origins have never been presented.  There are stories, but stories are not evidence--they're just stories.

The only practical tool we have available to us is science.  And science can only address questions of natural causation. If evidence for supernatural causation is ever found, it's not going to be through the use of science, since by definition, if it's supernatural, then it's not natural, and so science can't touch it.  Again, by definition, if science ever did "find evidence" of something that was supposedly supernatural, then that would automatically mean it wasn't supernatural in the first place, and was natural after all.  So you go develop a means of specifically and unequivocally testing supernatural causation, then get back to us. We'll wait.

We have very good, clear evidence of the processes behind life happening all over the place. And given that the alternative is magic, for which no evidence whatsoever exists, it's not really a valid debate.

None, but there's just as little evidence to suggest otherwise

Look up

RNA World Hypothesis

and imagine a laboratory the size of the planet and 200 million years of experimentation.

The Miller-Urey experiment and others did a fairly good job of demonstrating how biochemistry could arise, even in a small flask after a couple of weeks.  Given that life had the world ocean at its disposal plus millions of years, it seems pretty straightforward, don't you think?