Some questions on evolution

[vodkafan]

Hi , I have only a layman's knowledge of evolution and have a few questions that nobody has ever been able to answer, hoping some knowledgable folks here might help me out.

1. I know that the exact mechanism of how life started is not yet known. What seems certain though is that it started surprisingly soon after the earth got created, life was just busting out all over. My question is this: obviously conditions must still be OK for life, otherwise we would be a dead planet. So why is new life not busting out spontaneously all over so we can see it happening?

2. It seems to me that there is a sort of drive towards more complexity. Why is this so? Or am I wrong? I mean, Viruses and Bacteria and Archea are successful ubiquitous organisms. What made them develop into more complex forms of more and more complexity, inventing sex and self awareness, intelligence along the way and all, until eventually we get to Mila Kunis?

I think that's enough to be going on with.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hi , I have only a layman's knowledge of evolution and have a few questions that nobody has ever been able to answer, hoping some knowledgable folks here might help me out.

1. I know that the exact mechanism of how life started is not yet known. What seems certain though is that it started surprisingly soon after the earth got created, life was just busting out all over. My question is this: obviously conditions must still be OK for life, otherwise we would be a dead planet. So why is new life not busting out spontaneously all over so we can see it happening?

Do you live in a barren wasteland? Otherwise, I don't understand the question...I don't think you could find a spoonful of dirt or a mouthful of air anywhere you're likely to be that -isn't- bursting forth with new life on a constant basis.

2. It seems to me that there is a sort of drive towards more complexity. Why is this so? Or am I wrong? I mean, Viruses and Bacteria and Archea are successful ubiquitous organisms. What made them develop into more complex forms of more and more complexity, inventing sex and self awareness, intelligence along the way and all, until eventually we get to Mila Kunis?

Mutation. Death. Time. All three of which are gaurantees.

[Chas]

Hi , I have only a layman's knowledge of evolution and have a few questions that nobody has ever been able to answer, hoping some knowledgable folks here might help me out.

1. I know that the exact mechanism of how life started is not yet known. What seems certain though is that it started surprisingly soon after the earth got created, life was just busting out all over. My question is this: obviously conditions must still be OK for life, otherwise we would be a dead planet. So why is new life not busting out spontaneously all over so we can see it happening?

The conditions then were radically different than the conditions now.
For instance, there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere or dissolved in the oceans.
The conditions now are not suited to abiogenesis - organic molecules that form will get consumed or broken down.

2. It seems to me that there is a sort of drive towards more complexity. Why is this so? Or am I wrong? I mean, Viruses and Bacteria and Archea are successful ubiquitous organisms. What made them develop into more complex forms of more and more complexity, inventing sex and self awareness, intelligence along the way and all, until eventually we get to Mila Kunis?

There is no drive toward complexity per se.
If you start with single-celled organisms, where is there to go except more complex?
Many organisms are very simple and have been so for billions of years.

[paulpablo]

Hi , I have only a layman's knowledge of evolution and have a few questions that nobody has ever been able to answer, hoping some knowledgable folks here might help me out.

1. I know that the exact mechanism of how life started is not yet known. What seems certain though is that it started surprisingly soon after the earth got created, life was just busting out all over. My question is this: obviously conditions must still be OK for life, otherwise we would be a dead planet. So why is new life not busting out spontaneously all over so we can see it happening?

Do you live in a barren wasteland? Otherwise, I don't understand the question...I don't think you could find a spoonful of dirt or a mouthful of air anywhere you're likely to be that -isn't- bursting forth with new life on a constant basis.

2. It seems to me that there is a sort of drive towards more complexity. Why is this so? Or am I wrong? I mean, Viruses and Bacteria and Archea are successful ubiquitous organisms. What made them develop into more complex forms of more and more complexity, inventing sex and self awareness, intelligence along the way and all, until eventually we get to Mila Kunis?

Mutation. Death. Time. All three of which are gaurantees.

I think when he said new life he meant new as in like the original ancestor everything evolved from.

I don't really know the answer properly but I think it's something to do with the new life form would be microscopic so you wouldn't know it was there anyway, plus it would also not be able to survive on a planet full to the brim of life that's more highly evolved than it.

[vodkafan]

Do you live in a barren wasteland? Otherwise, I don't understand the question...I don't think you could find a spoonful of dirt or a mouthful of air anywhere you're likely to be that -isn't- bursting forth with new life on a constant basis.

Yes you did misunderstand the question, but thanks for trying to answer it. Yes, the air and dirt is teeming with life. But that's life that is already here, evolving, passing down DNA. Life comes from other life on a daily basis.

What I am talking about is spontaneous NEW life forms. Is there any evidence for amino acids combining, organic material organising itself starting off new life like they must have done back then 3.8 billion years ago? If not why not? This is my question.

[Chas]

Do you live in a barren wasteland? Otherwise, I don't understand the question...I don't think you could find a spoonful of dirt or a mouthful of air anywhere you're likely to be that -isn't- bursting forth with new life on a constant basis.

Yes you did misunderstand the question, but thanks for trying to answer it. Yes, the air and dirt is teeming with life. But that's life that is already here, evolving, passing down DNA. Life comes from other life on a daily basis.

What I am talking about is spontaneous NEW life forms. Is there any evidence for amino acids combining, organic material organising itself starting off new life like they must have done back then 3.8 billion years ago? If not why not? This is my question.

Did you not understand my answer?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes you did misunderstand the question, but thanks for trying to answer it. Yes, the air and dirt is teeming with life. But that's life that is already here, evolving, passing down DNA. Life comes from other life on a daily basis.

What I am talking about is spontaneous NEW life forms. Is there any evidence for amino acids combining, organic material organising itself starting off new life like they must have done back then 3.8 billion years ago? If not why not? This is my question.

Not that I'm aware of, no. I wonder how we might detect it if it was though...what with "new life" not being so thinly confined by our own evolutionary heritage. Our definition of life is extremely narrow..entirely derived from our own traits. In any case, as far as we can tell it's not exactly that common an occurance in any local frame of reference, especially relative to the frequency of life generating more life on this rock. Some novel new form of life would probably find itself bringing a knife to a gunfight if it wanted to set up shop in our house - we have a vicious headstart.

I wonder though, why you suppose that the mechanics of life generating life now are really all thAt dissimilar from the very first spark? We're all using the pattern that intrepid first happened upon anyway...aren't we?

[vodkafan]

The conditions then were radically different than the conditions now.
For instance, there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere or dissolved in the oceans.
The conditions now are not suited to abiogenesis - organic molecules that form will get consumed or broken down.

There is no drive toward complexity per se.
If you start with single-celled organisms, where is there to go except more complex?
Many organisms are very simple and have been so for billions of years.

Hi thanks you got what I meant. Yes I have heard and considered that argument. But haven't scientists duplicated the conditions and made "primordial soup" and flashed lightning at it and it just hasn't happened? It's an area of research I am very interested in. Why can't we make new life? It should be easy

If there is no drive towards complexity why are we not still one celled organisms? They are extrordinarily successful. Things don't change unless they have to. Why did we not stop at being insects? They are all over the planet and incredibly adaptable. It's quite incredible really that we have evolved arms and legs and brains to be able to manipulate our environment. I am not a creationist but it does look like evolution has an objective. I believe it is a question worth answering.

[The Grand Nudger]

Things don't change unless they have to.

.......................that right there is probably the root of your confusion. Things change regardless. There is no "have to" - things aren't even "responding" to challenges in the way that human beings conceptualize the terms. This stuff is just happening.

[downbeatplumb]

Hi thanks you got what I meant. Yes I have heard and considered that argument. But haven't scientists duplicated the conditions and made "primordial soup" and flashed lightning at it and it just hasn't happened? It's an area of research I am very interested in. Why can't we make new life? It should be easy

Why should it be easy? to our knowledge it only happened once in the history of the earth.

If there is no drive towards complexity why are we not still one celled organisms?

One celled organisms are still the most numerous. Evolution does not have a drive towards complexity, sometimes it works out that way. Mostly it doesn't.

They are extrordinarily successful. Things don't change unless they have to.

Wrong, things change all the time for lots of reasons. Humans are changing now.

Why did we not stop at being insects? They are all over the planet and incredibly adaptable. It's quite incredible really that we have evolved arms and legs and brains to be able to manipulate our environment. I am not a creationist but it does look like evolution has an objective. I believe it is a question worth answering.

As evolution doesn't have an objective it is not a question worth answering.