Biochemistry isn't my field, so I'd have to guess that it's a matter of chemicals forming that would then catalyze reactions that produce more of the same chemicals (or a close copy) out of molecules in their surroundings. Once something like that got started, the more efficient groups of chemicals would spread faster than the less efficient, producing a positive feedback effect (i.e., natural selection).

There isn't really any drive as such for more complexity, it's just that sometimes added features have a net positive effect on that population (and sometimes it doesn't). When adding features happens to work in the current environment, that species gets more complicated than its ancestors. When dropping a feature works, it gets less complicated.

(Not that this discussion has much to do with the title subject of this thread, though. )

Henry

A reply to Barber in Psychology Today, "Why atheism can't replace religion":
http://www.psychologytoday.com...ant-replace-religion

After reading these two Psychology Today arguments, I get the feeling that the successful argument tends to be whatever makes the least claims. Austin here is making a lighter claim than Barber. He is not claiming that the world will move to Atheism from Religion but is claiming something in-between. He says the world may or is likely to move to Secular Humanism but rejects the idea that group physical exercise would be a suitable replacement for religion. One claim is more audacious than the other and so is more easily dismissed. A move towards humanism is more likely than a move to Atheism, while really it is practically the same thing. I think perhaps this rebuttal was not a rebuttal but more of a refinement of the original argument. From what I've seen of humanists, they are at least capable of finding value in the treasures from our past while the atheists have tended to be completely dismissive. Just in my experience.