Sure but how much of them went extinct?

I am not strong on early stage primordial soup and what went on there but I find it a little hard to believe that something went completely extinct and then something completely new appeared. Surely there must be something that survived no?

> I am not strong on early stage primordial soup and what went on there

Clearly, since the "giant mushrooms" and "primordial soup" were separated by 3 billion years (75% of the earth's existence)

> I find it a little hard to believe that something went completely extinct and then something completely new appeared. Surely there must be something that survived no?

Yes, they're called "offspring". You are basically assuming that an organism has the same eye color as it's 800 millionth great grandparent.

I am aware of the difference between primordial soup and mushrooms :) dont think im assuming something, just trying to think through whether the emergent complexity process started way back or if its something that evolved more recently.

That’s like trying to understand the gravitational effects of dark matter without knowing basic maths.

Rather pointless.

How is the pondering of historical occurrence of events that are normally considered part of evolution and thus connected to some extent pointless?

I understand the basic "math" so to speak but congrats one scoring some cheap points.

There's no need to be a dick to someone who's trying to educate themselves.

Extinction is an absolute term. There is no difference between `slightly` extinct and `completely` extinct - quantifiers are meaningless here. It means 0 organisms of the taxonomical group in question (for this particular discussion, species) are alive. If you are arguing against the possibility of extinction, then be clear, and actually do that.

Whats up with the attitude of people commenting on this? I am just speculating here, those semantic details arent important for the larger discussion i was trying to start.