[sig226]

Yet, they forget that Darwin was a Christian, and that the origin of species does not in any way address the origin of life. How did living things evolve from non living things? How did a stone gain an evolutionary advantage by becoming able to be killed?

Oops.

[labette]

"Oops."

LOL. I'll bet you don't frequent these evolution threads much.
Darwin's clerics will be along shortly to tend to your reeducation.

[coloradan]

You ask an essentially semantic question. If molecules could replicate, it's doubtful anyone would call them "alive," but as this process became more complex (damage repair, enzymes, metabolism, etc.) eventually, everyone would agree that it is alive. But it's not like there would be one single step where everyone would agree the step is non-living, and the one of the next higher complexity everyone agrees is living, thereby bringing about a sudden transition from one to the other. So it gets down to, how exactly do you define the word "living?" That's why I call it a semantic question.

For example, are viruses alive? I personally say no, but mine isn't the only opinion. (My reasons: Viruses have no metabolism, and can't replicate unless something else does which they subvert. We can eat dead things and still live and reproduce, but viruses can't propagate unless they infect a living cell.) Viruses are very much a gray area between living and dead, anyway. And the Bible is silent on viruses, so that particular doctrine is unilluminating.

[RegulatorCountry]

"How did living things evolve from non living things?"

Unintelligent Non-design?

[taxesareforever]

If the human race evolved from one of something, why so many different languages?