Perhaps no one has bothered to answer you, because you have appeared to mix up two ideas into one question, and then you want an answer...and when you dont get one, you act as if you have won the argument...well, you have won nothing at all...
What you have managed to do, is demand concrete observations that persuade that living things evolved from non-life...this of course has to do with how did life begin in the first place and it has nothing to do with evolution of that life, once it exists...
How life began in the first place is a completely different area of study from how living things evolve...
I am not qualified to answer your questions...however, I can see that you are mixing up two questions...
1...how did life begin?... 2. does life evolve and what mechanisms are involved?...
If you want good answers to your questions, there are many on this thread who are more than able to answer your questions...but you have asked two different and separate questions...perhaps no one wants to untangle them for you....
You act as though one can posit that creatures evolved from a common point of descent, without a creator, but divorce yourself from the problem of nonliving matter organizing itself into the first cell in the first place.
I say, no, evolution HAS to tell a consistent story to be taken seriously. If I tell my five year old that Santa Claus gets on his sleigh, travels all over the world with his reindeer, and comes down the chimney, he will persistently ask, "but Daddy, where does Santa Claus come from?" until there is a satisfactory point of origin.
Evolutionists MUST have a seamless story to tell or their theory has no credence whatsoever. The first cell didn't appear out of thin air, and if one posits that a creator planted it here, his theory might as well be a form of creationism.
In response to my self-persuasive observations, several evolutionists helpfully posted diagrams of different levels of sophistication of vision, etc. But this does not show a credible, physiological pathway from one to another. These are all concurrently existing organisms that happen to be different, and their means of vision often has no rational connectedness to the other.
Simply because I can arrange twenty passengers on a bus in a line from hairiest to smoothest, or shortest to tallest, does not prove an avenue of descent. Do you see my problem with your line of reasoning?
What might be persuasive is if an evolutionist could dig down through verifiably aged strata of earth and find -- somewhere -- a consistently evolving organism from one thing to another in slow gradations. They have never accomplished this, but in their enthusiasm to find SOME example, will often ignore geographic or geological constraints, wildly infer from a single tooth how long the tibia was, or simply redate the strata to accommodate evolutionary theory.
And so what passes for evolutionary "science" today are journal and media articles that state that this or that "might" or "could reasonably" have been the cause of a particular trait. This is only speculation and without scientific value.