But once life gets started, it's easier to see how useful complexity can grow through evolutionary pressure. You've pr. seen this bactrapolation of exponential

But once life gets started, it's easier to see how useful complexity can grow through evolutionary pressure. You've pr. seen this bactrapolation of exponential growth in complexity of life: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/513781/moores-law-and-the-origin-of-life/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/513781/moores-law-and-the... Why don't we see the predicted simpler forms of life? They might not cope with the changed environment (e.g. oxygenation event), not be competitive with subsequent life, or we don't recognize them as "life" (e.g. viruses), or we just haven't detected them yet. "RNA world" is one theory, of a previous form of life that used only RNA, and no DNA. It's suggestive thst some of the most basic and ancient cellular mechanisms (transcription) are based on RNA. [I'm not an wxpert] There may have also been a "<predecessor> world" before that. And the dating of the earth's formation suggests all this may have been on a different physical world too.