Is the clock speed of evolution faster on bigger earths?

[Atheist-Lite]

Does a larger planet speed evolution up? Seems mass extinctions might be more common with asteroids hitting a larger planet. These mass extinctions seem to reset evolution and push it forward? Even if there isn't a increase in 'speed of evolution' there's more space for diversity hotspots to emerge that'll lead to more species evolution?

[cowiz]

How does evolution go "forward"?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

All else being equal I'd have to say "why do you think so"? Remember, creatures evolved fine between extinctions.

[Atheist-Lite]

Evolution doesn't have a purpose and it still went from 'living gunk' to the versatile human being we see today. Just wondered would that timeframe be shorter on a larger planet? by the law of averages....these things are full of variables doing their varying, I realise.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Evolution doesn't have a purpose and it still went from 'living gunk' to the versatile human being we see today. Just wondered would that timeframe be shorter on a larger planet? by the law of averages....these things are full of variables doing their varying, I realise.

Wouldn't a larger planet clear out it's zone quicker? So the later impacts would be space farther apart?

[Feck]

Evolution would be faster on planets with more changeable conditions .

[mistermack]

The rate of evolution seems to be a bit of a mystery. Why some groups, like sharks and crocodiles hardly change at all, while others, like hominins, change very rapidly.
A bigger earth would mean stronger gravity. It might have little effect on sea creatures, but a big effect on land dwellers, and especially big on flying animals.
It might also affect the density of the atmosphere, so storms might be far more damaging to plants and animals on land, and in the air.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The rate of evolution seems to be a bit of a mystery. Why some groups, like sharks and crocodiles hardly change at all, while others, like hominins, change very rapidly.

A design that works doesn't need a lot of changes to meet new conditions, so any "improvements" would have to be dramatic to ascend.

[Atheist-Lite]

A larger planet might have less mass or sufficient mass to equal earths gravity depending on composition. I'm assuming larger but with similar gravity hence less heavy metals as a proportion; any technological civilzation that did arrise might be slower in ascent which may be a advantage given the example we have here on earth - rushing to the summit and now apparently falling off the otherside?

[mistermack]

The rate of evolution seems to be a bit of a mystery. Why some groups, like sharks and crocodiles hardly change at all, while others, like hominins, change very rapidly.

A design that works doesn't need a lot of changes to meet new conditions, so any "improvements" would have to be dramatic to ascend.

I know what you're getting at, it must be part of the answer. But every creature is a design that works, and that goes for every single one of it's ancestors as well.
Some get superceded, and some stay incredibly unchanged.
I'm sure there are well established explanations, but it's not something I've come across.

[Coito ergo sum]

Does a larger planet speed evolution up? Seems mass extinctions might be more common with asteroids hitting a larger planet. These mass extinctions seem to reset evolution and push it forward? Even if there isn't a increase in 'speed of evolution' there's more space for diversity hotspots to emerge that'll lead to more species evolution?

Don't know, since there haven't been other planets discovered on which biological life exists or evolves.

[Coito ergo sum]

How does evolution go "forward"?

A god or gods created evolution with a purpose, therefore evolution moves towards that purpose (i.e. forward).

[Coito ergo sum]

All else being equal I'd have to say "why do you think so"? Remember, creatures evolved fine between extinctions.

Evolution works with isolated populations. Mass extinctions are a method of isolating a population. Instead of walling two populations off from each other, allowing natural selection to work in separate gene pools, one population is just wiped out, and the remaining population are the genetic survivors.

[Coito ergo sum]

Evolution doesn't have a purpose and it still went from 'living gunk' to the versatile human being we see today. Just wondered would that timeframe be shorter on a larger planet? by the law of averages....these things are full of variables doing their varying, I realise.

Shorter to do what? Evolution on a different planet might not result in anything like human beings. For most of this planet's history it got along just fine without humans. We're not a necessary byproduct of evolution. We showed up blip ago in the scheme of things.

[Atheist-Lite]

Evolution doesn't have a purpose and it still went from 'living gunk' to the versatile human being we see today. Just wondered would that timeframe be shorter on a larger planet? by the law of averages....these things are full of variables doing their varying, I realise.

Shorter to do what? Evolution on a different planet might not result in anything like human beings. For most of this planet's history it got along just fine without humans. We're not a necessary byproduct of evolution. We showed up blip ago in the scheme of things.

I think there is something in that. Not all planets will develop intelligent life and why should they? Those which do might benefit from a large planet. We are needing 2 or so earths to sustain our current current civilization - a larger planet would give a intelligent species longer to adopt a sustainable technological model?