No, you don't. Absent the observation of such, all you have is speculation. And even this is tenuously done, since you have no fossil intermediates which have stood the test of criticism. Even evolutionists bemoan the lack of intermediary structures in the fossil record.
but the actual origin can only be speculated on.
Actually, the speculated origins of life on earth upon which empirical science can actually be brought to bear (i.e. excluding exotic nonsense like panspermia or "aliens brought life to earth from somewhere") are positively excluded by an understanding of simple chemistry. There simply was no abiogenesis of life on any early earth.
What the creationists due is put their faith in a book that was written by bronze age dwellers of the middle east.
You are aware that the evolutionary philosophical system relies upon a cosmogeny which is still basically the same as what people in the Stone Age believed, right?
nice spin, pseudo-science at its best. you should be congratulated for you use of hyperbole.
fossil intermediates eh?
yes there are holes in the fossil records. if the whole thing were laid bare with all the possible combinations and evolutionary changes I would then believe in creationism, because it would be a MIRACLE to have find all that stuff and it would have had to be exposed to us all at once by a supreme intellect.
I am done with this post, your faith is strong, have a good life.