Esq already said most of what I was going to, but oh, well... I can always add something extra! 
We try, nonetheless...
There are, however, people working on how life could come from lifelessness... and they have come to quite a few promising results, like Esq said...
Also, have fun:
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
Some are still around us... yous see, according to the theory, evolution is still taking place and so we are all transitional forms into something else.
Humans are a special case, as they've learned to mold the environment to suit themselves, instead of having to adapt to the environment.... which just renders evolutionary pressures somewhat null and thus we are evolving very, very slowly, compared to the remaining life on Earth.
You seem to be under the impression that a single mutation can result in a new fully functioning organ, from one generation to the next. This is not how the theory of evolution proposes new structures to form.
I'll have to refer to my original post where I ask you to learn about the theory of evolution, before you reply, as it will be beneficial for our conversation to proceed. Refusal to do so, may be met with sarcasm, mocking and/or taunting.
If you have actual doubts which you wish addressed by someone who may be aware of their responses, then feel free to post them. But refrain from strawmanning.

(June 8, 2014 at 1:00 pm)Harris Wrote:Somehow, I feel it will be difficult... nay.. nigh-impossible to shake your strawman of what evolution really is.(May 30, 2014 at 5:27 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Harris the logical comes forth and gives us the qur'an... how unexpected... -.-'
DNA didn't just pop into existence all built up. It must have evolved from simpler self-replicating structures... RNA being a close relative.
Seriously, people are telling you to go learn about the things you're trying to inform us about.... it is clear that you are ignorant of what science tells us about those things. Go read up on them, but refrain from using your crappy biased sources.
Start on wikipedia, follow the references, seek them out on google scholar and learn.... it will be a slow process, given that there are now tons of articles on the subjects and few are attempts at summarizing it, but it will be worth it.
Like I said somewhere else, probably to someone else, your logic fails you due to wrong premisses. Endeavor to make your premises as correct as possible and you can't be faulted for them...
Do what you've been doing... and you're dismissed like a pigeon playing chess.
I am thankful for your concern about educating me. You are most welcome to give me few lessons.
We try, nonetheless...
(June 8, 2014 at 1:00 pm)Harris Wrote: Please provide me the links to scientific papers and books which answer the following questions in terms of verifiable scientific proofs:Was there anyone around back then who could document it reliably? I'd wager that no, there wasn't. So, we may never know that.
1. What is the origin of living cell?
There are, however, people working on how life could come from lifelessness... and they have come to quite a few promising results, like Esq said...
Also, have fun:
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html
(June 8, 2014 at 1:00 pm)Harris Wrote: 2. Where are the transient animals?They're dead. If we can't find fossils of them, then it's because fossilization is an extremely rare process. It's actually a wonder we have managed to find as many fossils as we have. Again, refer to Esq's reply for examples.
Some are still around us... yous see, according to the theory, evolution is still taking place and so we are all transitional forms into something else.
Humans are a special case, as they've learned to mold the environment to suit themselves, instead of having to adapt to the environment.... which just renders evolutionary pressures somewhat null and thus we are evolving very, very slowly, compared to the remaining life on Earth.
(June 8, 2014 at 1:00 pm)Harris Wrote: 3. What new organs, a positive mutation has produced?
You seem to be under the impression that a single mutation can result in a new fully functioning organ, from one generation to the next. This is not how the theory of evolution proposes new structures to form.
I'll have to refer to my original post where I ask you to learn about the theory of evolution, before you reply, as it will be beneficial for our conversation to proceed. Refusal to do so, may be met with sarcasm, mocking and/or taunting.
If you have actual doubts which you wish addressed by someone who may be aware of their responses, then feel free to post them. But refrain from strawmanning.