Atheists, if you truly believe in "evolution" as the ultimate truth...?

Alhamdulillah, I am not an Atheist.

Once again this semantic quibble. An atheist is a person who has no belief in god. Not all atheists accept evolution though most do. There are also theists who accept evolution.

I don't call evolution the "ultimate truth". I don't call general relativity or atomic theory the "ultimate truth" either. I don't know that there is such a thing as "ultimate truth".

Evolution does not claim that man came from a monkey. You are not descended from any living species. You and a monkey have a common ancestor as you have a common ancestor will all living things.

In order to function any organism needs to undergo constant numerous chemical reations to sustain bodily systems. When these reactions stop an organism ceases to live. You seem to imply that a "soul" is necessary to expain life and death. Does a cockroach have a soul? Clearly there is a difference beween a living and dead cockroach.

Evolution is not an ultimate truth - it is a scientific paradigm, with countless amounts of evidence to back it up...the origins of life are still an on-going pursuit...

A live body is different than a dead body because the heart is no longer working - without the heart pumping blood through the body, the organs fail, especially those in the brain where the electro-chemical impulses control all the body's functions. This happens in all biological creatures to different degrees of complexity.

Produce a "soul" for study (or at least take the time to inquire as to why you believe in it) - something in which we can measure the electro-chemical responses in the entity's "brain" that significantly explains the motor movements of what you claim exists independently of the body...if you do that young man, you will begin to create a new paradigm...my suggestion is you educate yourself in the following disciplines - human biology, brain chemistry, particle physics, quantum mechanics, evolutionary psychology, and even some basic philosophy.

EDIT: I believe I have sufficiently answered your query about the difference between a "dead and living" thing...why you should need a further clarification on what is "living and non-living" makes little sense...if you want more complex answers, please invest in a basic biology book at a used book store or something.

The difference between a living being and a dead being is whether or not the cells are still metabolizing and synthesizing needed proteins.

We can't look at cells with our naked eye, so we have to make guesses off of what we can directly observe. Doctors, for example, listen for a heartbeat, check for a pulse, listen for air moving in the lungs, and use an electroencephalogram before determined if a person is dead. The reason is simple: these vital bodily functions are only possible if the cells involved are still functioning properly (i.e., metabolizing and synthesizing). A person in a coma might look like a dead person because he isn't moving, but checks like these will demonstrate that he's still alive.

There is no soul. The belief in a soul is an error in thought: it's based on the assumption that we are, essentially, our thoughts, feelings and memories. When be begin thinking this, we think of ourselves as these ephemeral effects--and not the material body that they rely on. It is wrong to assume that the events of consciousness will continue to exist even after the underlying mechnics of them breakdown. Consciousness is not life itself, but a biological feature.

It's like a program running on a computer: if you break the computer, the program stops working. Similarly, when the body ceases to work, so does its features.

Atheists don't believe there's necessarily any such thing as an "ultimate truth", let alone such malarkey as a "soul".

And atheists don't claim that "man came from a monkey". Atheists state that they don't believe in a god.

There is plenty of evidence from evolutionary biology that shows that humans are a type of primate, sharing a common ancestor with the other great apes in Africa (chimpanzees and gorillas) - and developing into a sentient, tool-using biped on the savannas of Africa following the split from the other great ape lineages about 6 million years ago.

But this evidence comes from genetics, paleontology, archaeology, geology, comparative anatomy, cladistic analysis, radiometric dating of volcanic deposits, and biostratigraphy - it doesn't have anything to do with a theological position on the existence or non-existence of bearded skydudes.

Atheists don't 'believe' in evolution, if they believe it at all. Certain people believe it to be an accurate description of how life on this planet came about. And being a believing Christian and believing evolution are not mutually exclusive ..

A living being exhibits reverse entropic attributes. As in everything else in the universe runs down, except for living things, which appear to do the opposite. There are differing levels of aliveness, technically speaking this Amoeba is alive but can't post questions on Yahoo . .:)

Life is a continuous, highly complex chemical reaction. When that chemical reaction stops, we call it 'death' - at that point, other processes take over, such as decomposition.

And there is, of course, no such thing as a 'soul'.

Atheist's don't believe in a soul and not all Atheist's think Evolution is correct.

there is no soul and the debate for how life began will continue until we have good enough evidence to say it was this or that.

do y ou think animals have souls?

a living thing is alvie and breathing and functioning. a dead thing is not breathing and not functioning and is not alive.

is this a serious question?

You made the assumption that people "believe" in evolution it's just a Theory not a belief.

And you assume there is a soul which can't be proved so is not a valid argument.

We know when something is dead when it no longer shows signs of life; heartbeat, eating, moving etc

"What's the difference between a living and non-living thing?"

Metabolism.

There is no "soul", there are only brains evolved enough to experience self-awareness. We know what happens in the brains that produces emotions and memories, we don't have to believe in concepts like "soul", that were made up by people who didn't know what the brain was for.

"explain how a living being is different from a dead living being?"

What the hell is a "dead living being"? And if you're reffering to a living being which has died, well the difference should be fairly obvious. Dead beings are DEAD were as living beings are not. And there are scientific explanations as to how and why living beings die.