The first cell that ever lived is still alive, in YOU

Watch
Flying Cookie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Did you ever realise that every cell in your body traces back to the very first thing that was alive? And therefore that thing never died, through all of time, through all of species, it never ever died.

0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
OMG
1
reply
Valyrian
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
That's really deep.
1
reply
iAmanze
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
Cannot get my head around the accent, some sounds like Queen's English, some sounds like something else

Alas, nice unique video. Was interesting!
1
reply
miser
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
It's an interesting thought, but it's probably not actually true...

The assumption being made here is that the very first 'living thing' is also the one that first successfully replicated. That sounds like a big leap of faith to me. I'd guess that there were a lot of living things that appeared over time and only one/some of them were able to successfully replicate and begin a long-lasting family tree. If I'm making an error here someone correct me.
1
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
(Original post by lilypear)
That's really deep.
That's what she said.

My apologies for this post, but I simply couldn't resist.
1
reply
Valyrian
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by william walker)
That's what she said.

My apologies for this post, but I simply couldn't resist.
It was actually very deep.
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
(Original post by iAmanze)
Cannot get my head around the accent, some sounds like Queen's English, some sounds like something else

Alas, nice unique video. Was interesting!
Her parents are foreign by the sound of her voice and her skin tone. I also think she has nasal issues like Ed Miliband.
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
(Original post by lilypear)
It was actually very deep.
That's what she said to him after the act.
0
reply
Valyrian
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
(Original post by william walker)
Her parents are foreign by the sound of her voice and her skin tone. I also think she has nasal issues like Ed Miliband.
By the sound of her skin tone yeah?
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by lilypear)
By the sound of her skin tone yeah?
Well it is a fact that people pickup the accent of their parents. She obviously isn't white in the Nordic sense of the word. I would say more Mediterranean with her skin tone. So these two things tell me that she has picked up part of her parents accent and her parents are foreign. I have also watched another video where her sister is speaking in the foreign language. I have to some extent done research into this vital and world defining issue.
0
reply
Flying Cookie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#12
(Original post by miser)
It's an interesting thought, but it's probably not actually true...

The assumption being made here is that the very first 'living thing' is also the one that first successfully replicated. That sounds like a big leap of faith to me. I'd guess that there were a lot of living things that appeared over time and only one/some of them were able to successfully replicate and begin a long-lasting family tree. If I'm making an error here someone correct me.
Well, "first" is used figuratively somewhat. For sure other things at the same time died, and then probably most of the descendants of that cell also died, but all that must've happened clustered together, since more complex life couldn't have arisen from scratch e.g. a mammal from scratch, or even eukaryotic cell, so from a fairly simple beginning onwards, that single cell did indeed survive without fail to create everything alive today.
0
reply
Flying Cookie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#13
Re: the off-topic stuff:

1. There is no such thing as accent inheritance, and thank goodness I do not have my parents' accent :lol: It isn't a regional accent because I wasn't brought up in a single English-speaking area for all my childhood; but it's also not an actual accent e.g. German or whatever... It is my special blend of herbs and spices

2. Mediterranean? Eh... a shot in the dark. Romanian + Iranian if you must know, and yes the language my sister was speaking in that old video of hers was Romanian The world is more complicated than you think.

3. I do not have a nasal issue although my sister would love to join you in mocking my nose/nostrils. I realised it sounded weird because I was laying on my back. Unless you think it sounds nasal in the other videos... Which I didn't think :indiff:
0
reply
miser
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by Flying Cookie)
Well, "first" is used figuratively somewhat. For sure other things at the same time died, and then probably most of the descendants of that cell also died, but all that must've happened clustered together, since more complex life couldn't have arisen from scratch e.g. a mammal from scratch, or even eukaryotic cell, so from a fairly simple beginning onwards, that single cell did indeed survive without fail to create everything alive today.
The simplest thing we could say that had been "alive" probably wouldn't have been something that was both alive and capable of producing a descendent, unless that criterion is part of our definition of life. I think very simple "alive" things probably would have had to have occurred many times before one of them was able to create another of like-kind. I don't really see why we'd be justified to say this first life form was able to replicate or that all cells in existence came from it. If the spark of life happened once, most likely it could happen again.
0
reply
Flying Cookie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by miser)
The simplest thing we could say that had been "alive" probably wouldn't have been something that was both alive and capable of producing a descendent, unless that criterion is part of our definition of life. I think very simple "alive" things probably would have had to have occurred many times before one of them was able to create another of like-kind. I don't really see why we'd be justified to say this first life form was able to replicate or that all cells in existence came from it. If the spark of life happened once, most likely it could happen again.
Fair enough, not the first living thing that could not reproduce or did not reproduce in our direct lineage, but our universal common ancestor. That would still be a really long time ago, and it would have had to be a very simple life form. I can see how the primordial life forms would've arisen multiple times, but as I said before, past a certain level of complexity, you couldn't expect those things to arise again. I'm not aware of any example of more complex life reverting to simpler forms, although that would be utterly fascinating.
0
reply
miser
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
(Original post by Flying Cookie)
Fair enough, not the first living thing that could not reproduce or did not reproduce in our direct lineage, but our universal common ancestor. That would still be a really long time ago, and it would have had to be a very simple life form. I can see how the primordial life forms would've arisen multiple times, but as I said before, past a certain level of complexity, you couldn't expect those things to arise again. I'm not aware of any example of more complex life reverting to simpler forms, although that would be utterly fascinating.
Then we agree on what I was trying to convey in my original post.

Although I'm not sure whether there is a universal common ancestor.
0
reply
Flying Cookie
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by miser)
Then we agree on what I was trying to convey in my original post.

Although I'm not sure whether there is a universal common ancestor.
Well, there is and there isn't depending on what you're talking about. Everything alive today? Everything alive ever? Everything alive on Earth? See, this is why I'm not a big fan of taxonomy, genealogy and the like. But the point is that from me and you backwards, life has gone on uninterrupted for a ridiculously long time, back to what most certainly was an inconspicuous single little damned thing, and that thing was freaking awesome to give rise to TSRians :cool:

JK JK TSR is so annoying sometimes
0
reply
TorpidPhil
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
What is the likelihood of said "common ancestor" actually being created at so close a similar time to another "common ancestor" of similar form that actually there was 2, or 3, or 4 of these common ancestors from which we all came?

Like, if something causes 1 living cell to arise, why could it not cause 2 or more? And given that it could what are the chances that that process which caused the first one did manage to cause more than 1 before that 1 living cell could actually reproduce itself?

In fact, this wouldn't hold true so long as there was ever an additional cell other than the very first living cell that itself did not descend from the very first living cell.

I don't understand why you people are making the assumption that whatever process brought about the first living cell just ceased to re-occur thereafter and therefore that all life thereafter must have come from the reproduction of that first cell.
0
reply
minor bun engine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by miser)
It's an interesting thought, but it's probably not actually true...

The assumption being made here is that the very first 'living thing' is also the one that first successfully replicated. That sounds like a big leap of faith to me. I'd guess that there were a lot of living things that appeared over time and only one/some of them were able to successfully replicate and begin a long-lasting family tree. If I'm making an error here someone correct me.
Isn't a common definition of the origin of life, the origin of the first self replicating molecule? Based on what we know about biology it seems an ancient type of genetic material which could self replicate would first be required, before anything more complex such as an entire cell could come about.
0
reply
william walker
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by Ifailedumad)
Rekd tha **** bru?
What?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should the school day be extended to help students catch up?

Yes (56)
28.43%
No (141)
71.57%

Watched Threads

View All