Darwin, really?

isn't there little to no evidence that evolution can account for the origins of life..

It doesn't pretend to. That is an entirely different theory (Abiogenesis).

or the increasing complexity of life on a cellular level?

We actually have a significant amount of evidence of evolution on a "cellular level", assuming you are talking about very small organisms. I'll see what I can dig up..

Evolution on the cellular level is a very done deal. You can practically watch it happening. The Lenski Experiment is one instance where it was actually done, in test tubes, under carefully controlled conditions.

Some highly interesting stuff got mixed into the evolution of cells (say, human cells) too: Part of our DNA is (IIRC) DNA from retroviruses. Some of the organelles in cells descended from other organisms (bacteria?) that were absorbed by cells; and there even seems to be a bit of horizontal gene transfer between non-related species. It's messy but highly interesting.

Evolution is used as a counter-argument to a personal god. Evolution shows that humans are not special in terms of origin, and therefore the idea that "God created people to have a relationship with them" makes no more sense than "God created E. Coli to have a relationship with it."

Evolution is not about the origin of live. You are uninformed, sorry that I have to hit you with this cinder block.

Evolution explains how you get from one living cell to millions of complex species. How you got that one living cell is a different branch of science.

I can't think of a way for evolution to account for speciation on a cellular level.

It's already been demonstrated that populations of single-cell organisms can adapt, diverge in characteristics, and rapidly propagate advantageous adaptations (albeit through asexual reproduction). Is that what you're referring to?

I'm not trying to say that evolution is supposed to account for the origin of life, but for some reason it seems a lot of atheists try to use it as a counter-argument to theism, claiming that because of evolution, there is no need for a god to create life.

Even if we didn't know about evolution, it would still be rationally correct to reject theism. Atheists are only forced to dwell on defending evolution because many theists dwell on denying it.

(Relevant Dawkins quote: "An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.")

Correct, evolution makes no attempt to address abiogenesis. As for your question:

I can't think of a way for evolution to account for speciation on a cellular level.

Perhaps you can rephrase or elaborate it for r/science.

Cells split. Errors occur in cells. Successful mutations thrive. Why should it be any different then a multicellular level?

enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/DB23537556D7AADB/3/v8nYTJf62sE

it seems a lot of atheists try to use it as a counter-argument to theism

Its a counterargument for creationism.

I can't think of a way for evolution to account for speciation on a cellular level.

Evolution happens on the molecular level, not on a cellular level. By tiny mutations in the DNA that specifies existing cells and body plans.

You don't have to reinvent the cell in order to go from monkeys to humans. I'm guessing that most of the change will be in the way you organize cells.

Evolution is not a counter argument for theism. However, it does fight against creationist, and does disprove their version of god, and their world view in general.

Their are a lot of people who believe in a god, and know that evolution is true.

Evolution does not account for the orign of life. However it does say we evolved from lower life forms. If this is the case and you take the bible literally then it is a good argument against theism Christianity espicially. With evolution you do not have an adam or eve. Therefor you do not have originial sin. With out originial sin the whole point of Jesus dying is mute.

By speciation do you you mean speciation (google it) or chemical abiogenesis? If you mean speciation, you might not "be able to think of a way", but don't worry, other people have, and it's well supported by detailed evidence (and experimentally achievable in the lab/farm, google it). If you mean chemical abiogenesis, if you're young, stay healthy and sit tight for a few decades and we'll have something new to show you in a blink of evolutionary time.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, it is the mutation of life that already exists. Evolution is a counter-argument to theism/creationism because they claim god created life exactly as it is (poof humans) and clearly that isn't true is we evolved from other lifeforms.

Not sure exactly what you are getting at with the complexity of life on a cellular level. I don't think its really that complex when you look close enough. Something like DNA may seem complex but it's just a really long chain or nucleotides, which is just a combination of some sugars, phosphates and a nucleobase. You can keep going and pick apart the elements of each to these to something simpler. Life, as well as most things in the universe, is just a huge amount of simple things coming together.

Sometimes DNA is copied incorrectly or is otherwise mutated. Now imagine this happening over billions of years (in organisms that reproduce much faster than we do) and it's not too far-fetched imagining how we got to where we are.

You've read the wrong book. Read Why Evolution is True or The Greatest Show on Earth.

Everything that Behe has written/claimed has been refuted many times. This guys doesn't have anything to say on the theory of evolution. He's rather a liar.

If you want to know how/why evolution works, read genuine evolutionary biologists, not Behe.

I can't think of a way for evolution to account for speciation on a cellular level.

Oh, well, if you can't think of a way then what chance do the scientists have. Let me call the King of science and tell him to call off the search.

isn't there little to no evidence that evolution can account for the origins of life

Hmm. evolution by natural selection completely fails to account for gravity as well. It also fails to account for double entry bookkeeping and the popularity of Katy Perry. In fact it fails to account for all the phenomena it was never designed to account for.

The study of the origins of life is abiogenesis. It can't involve evolution until you have reproduction and modification. Until that point it's chemistry, physics and so on.

the increasing complexity of life on a cellular level?

what specifically is it you think it can't account for?

I may simply be uninformed

No, it's worse. You've been lied to about evolution, and about how it in fact can and does account for complexity. You're actively misinformed.

I suggest you read the site talkorigins.org.

There's a lot of material there. You seem to require pretty much all of it.

If you have remaining questions after that, you can try again, but really, such science questions belong in r/AskScience or r/evolution or r/abiogenesis

lot of atheists try to use it as a counter-argument to theism, claiming that because of evolution, there is no need for a god to create life.

Can you give some examples of someone doing this? If it's "a lot of atheists" you should be able to come up with a bunch of them.

I may simply be uninformed

Yup.

It makes sense to me that evolution can be traced right back to the origins of life, the first bits of whatever life is made of, assembling themselves in ever more complex arrangements until the first cells emerged