/sci/ - Science & Math

>Secondly why aren't new species pop up constantly everyday?

to paraphrase richard dawkins, that's like looking at a tree and asking why the only growth occur in the branches; why aren't there new trunks growing anymore?

>>1170242
well, fuck.

>>1170233
>Secondly why aren't new species pop up constantly everyday?

they are, but i assume you mean 'new life', in which case it would have to deal with competition. theres really no niche that new life could exploit that isnt already being done. secondly, any genetic material that formed would most likely be absorbed by existing bacteria

if new species do arise they would be tiny, they'd be eaten by the much more developed microscopic organism that already exist

>>1170255
no i'm asking about the branches precisely. there can very well be new species by slight changes in current dna structures. like new animals etc...

If this isn't copypasta, it needs to be.

>>1170273
the branches stem from an existing trunk

you are asking why there isnt a new trunk.

>>1170233
ZILTOID IS IN A STATE OF COFFEE FUELLED RAGE AT YOUR LACK OF COGNITIVE ABILITY!!!!

>>1170273
You know evolution takes a long time right?

>>1170270
>>1170259
OK, that would make sense. How about places with no microorganisms with extreme conditions? For example the base of an ocean, i know there are very weird organisms living there, can it be the result of this?

>>1170273
>doesn't understand billions of years
>doesn't understand that branches are split into "species," and that a small change in a creature doesn't necessarily make it a new species.

>>1170300
there are archea and other forms of bacteria that exist there, which i think all go back to a UCA

>is there a chance a human will form again?
most probably not
the environment has vastly changed since the origin of life on earth

>>1170255
...well...why aren't there new trunks?

>>1170329
see
>>1170259
>>1170270

>>1170329
Depends what kind of tree it is.

Some of them have multiple trunks.

when people in this thread wrote species, what is implied is the spontaneous generation of an organism that has the ability to survive and replicate; this is extremely rare and the consensus at the moment is that it only happened once on our planet.

i assume that they're not referring to speciation; one of the reasons speciation seems to have slowed down is because it happens at an extremely slow pace and the geographical separation - one of the catalysts of speciation - has been reduced by technology that allows for easier travel anywhere in the world

>>1170346
pics nao!

>>1170379
geographical isolation isnt necessary for speciation really though. differing forms of pressure along with isolation is whats needed.

>>1170379
>when people in this thread wrote species, what is implied is the spontaneous generation of an organism that has the ability to survive and replicate; this is extremely rare and the consensus at the moment is that it only happened once on our planet.
That's exactly it. Cambrian explosion was it? Why though? What was the spark to produce such large scale variety?

Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that organic chemicals would never be organize into new life in our current environment.

Shit's changed a lot since cells first formed bro.

>>1170409
its possible, we have seen RNA synthesis by itself

>>1170383
>>1170383

>>1170423
I see one trunk and a bunch of fat brqnches

>>1170430

Not the guy you're talking with, but one word:

Saplings

The Earth's current environment has too much Nitrogen to catalyze new life.

/thread.

>>1170430
>>1170430

I see one fat ass and no ho's around.

>>1170423