Now, to the first question: From where did people originate?

Posed that way the question assumes a decidedly Darwinian flavor. I meant it to. Even before we tackle that, however, the word "originate" masks another question regarding whether or not man even had a beginning and, if not, is this mortal state only part of an eternal existence? Is mortality simply a change in venue and condition?

The state or characteristic of being eternal typically conjures immortality. But how can something that is eternal and, therefore, has no end, have a beginning? Doesn't eternal mean having no end or beginning? If man has no beginning, then where has he been? Are we conjuring up a version of reincarnation?

If man, (as in the classical meaning of mankind—both men and women, of course; I will not succumb to the political correctness crowd), is an accident and is the product of a kind of cosmic vomit that swirled together in the stomach of mother earth until an amoeba popped out, and over time evolution came up with all that currently is, then of course, mortal man is simply what you see and no more.

In this view, when man's mortal body ends functioning it means nothing more than a campfire going out. It was warm while it lasted but now that it's gone we'll simply continue our hike and fondly remember the s'mores.

Many concede the chances of that accidental combination of necessities producing a living cell are astonomical but, so the argument goes, if given enough time, anything is possible. From ThinkQuest.org:

"Sir Fred Hoyle a mathematician and astronomer calculated that the probability of one simple enzyme forming by chance is 10 to the power of 20 (one with twenty zeros behind it), to 1. Hence for one cell to form, about 2000 enzymes are needed, which makes the probability of the first self replicating cell forming by random movement of atoms as 10 to the power of 40000 to 1. One bitter critic of Hoyle begrudgingly says that that this figure is 'probably not overly exaggerated'.

"It has been said that this is as likely as a cyclone going through a junkyard and producing a fully functional jumbo jet."

Although Muggeridge probably put it best:

"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
—Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), 59.

Unless...

Well,again, there are those who nonetheless continue the "if given enough time" theory. Unless... Unless a living cell requires a component that is not supplied by a random electro/chemical reaction. In that case it would not matter how much time elapsed.

If every living cell has a spiritual component that must be placed in it (or assigned to it) by God, then nature, by itself is incapable of creating life (meaning organizing—as in assembling existing components). Because, in that case, life cannot be created accidentally, for a necessary component of it has always existed and is simply combined with its mortal counterpart by the power of God. If this is true, then it appears that creation is an ongoing process for God.

The Jews have a cute traditional story. The question is asked, "Now that God has created the heavens and the earth and all of us, He must be pretty bored. What is there for Him to do now?" And the answer comes: "He creates marriages." I like that story. I like to think that God is always creating.

This could tributary off into subjects like cloning and artificial intellegence and the supposed technological singularity that is on the horizon but those subjects are tangential at best and while the one requires a living thing to begin with (and if God truly has granted free choice to us, then he would have to honor our clone by placing a corresponding spirit into it--or not--good topic for further discussion), the second never posits life but only an imitation of it. So while interesting and, perhaps, worthy of discussion, for the sake of focus we'll return to the original three questions.