the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree

They must be Republicans.

@@JMDinOKC I shouldn’t laugh at this

@@JMDinOKC hAHa fNuNy, now laugh at US politics, nOaW

Pff, Americans...

To be fair, they are still alive and kicking it. Since they still make history I reject the prefix "pre". They are just historic?! Anyway, you got mad skills if you can draw these!

@@MrEiht :)

@@MrEiht :>

@@MrEiht You can trace them using a microscope.

It is Sponge Bob

You are a microbiologist to me 💝

@@grogu8236 I'm an engineerd

@@thefatmoop 🤦‍♀️

If you had microscopes like this at your school, you would have already had to be rich... and be at a school that made cgi videos of what microbes might look like

James is a fantastic microscopist

Sounds about right, lol.

Utilities?

$3000 if your in California

Which is funny because if you watch his vlogbrothers videos he is so amped up and excitable! He has no chill! 😆 I guess he saves it all for these narrations 🤷😏

microcosmos is my go-to videos for sleep -- i watch the new ones awake & focused but when its time to zonk out, i want nothing more than chill hank describing microorganisms lol

I do too =) But I can't fall asleep to it because I wanna see the microbes and what he's explaining

Thank you!!

We are Eukaryotes, we need to go back! Return to Pre-Metazoan ciliates!

Wait, we’ve always been eukaryotes, and we’ll always be.

@@laserfan17 now it's correct

Return to Hydrogen!

@@dovahkiin_brasil perfect 👌🏻

It really is an whole universe 🤗

It is probably more like 700 septillion times removed.

No, they definitely would've had to change because the planet and other living things around them have also changed. When people talk about 'living fossils' they mean that the outward or general appearance and food finding strategies of a creature are more or less the same as they were a very long time ago, not that they're entirely the same. Some body plans and strategies simply work well enough that there's no need to make big changes

@@limiv5272 Agreed, I mean it seems like they messed up with semantics a bit. I hate when creationists abuse these small mistakes to argue against evolution theorum.

@@junholee4961 Oh yeah me too

We will make one in our 5th season! :) -James

That's a complicated topic. It was a process called abiogenesis, and I'll be real with you, while we have the starting points of an understanding of the process, we still have absolutely no idea how it happened. What we do know is: - The early Earth's oceans were a mixing pot of organic chemicals (those are chemicals with a carbon skeleton/structure) and all kinda of chemical reactions. These chemicals arrived on Earth from the building blocks of the planet, i.e., asteroids and comets, and we still find them in abundance in asteroids and comets to this day. - Somehow this 'primordial soup' generated the first living cells. It is likely that phospholipids (the chemicals that make up cell membranes) could've formed 'bubbles' of isolated chemistry. Any RNA that spontaneously generated in the primordial soup could've been captured in these bubbles, and provided conditions were acceptable, could've self-replicated to produce more RNA. In doing so, it would have acted like a single-molecule-sized living thing, eating (RNA nucleotides), reproducing (self-replicating), and evolving (random mutations). As with all things evolution, most mutations would suck. However, any beneficial mutations in the RNA structure would allow the RNA molecule to replicate more efficiently. In doing so it might out-compete other RNA sequences trying to do the same thing, becoming dominant in its environment. This process would continue until RNA gained the capacity to catalyze the formation of more complex structures, such as polypeptides (proteins), forming the first, true cells. This would've created an early Earth that was dominated by RNA-based life: the theory is called the "RNA world hypothesis". (FYI, RNA that catalyses things is called a ribozyme, and is the RNA equivalent to an enzyme. Ribosomes do this in cells to this day). - Somewhere along the line, RNA somehow got switched to DNA, providing us with our DNA-based world we see today. - Problems with this whole concept: somehow, cells must've gained the capacity to take in energy from their surroundings in order to facilitate their own chemical reactions. E.g., photosynthesis, but more likely, chemosynthesis. How this could've possible occurred is totally unknown. It's thought a likely place for it to have occurred, though, would be deep sea hydrothermal vents. Some scientists think having a metabolism is so important that this must've occurred first, before the addition of self-replicating molecules (metabolism-first hypothesis), but others remain convinced that self-replicating RNA was the initial kick that got abiogenesis going, and later, from this, RNA-based metabolisms arrived (replicator-first hypothesis). - Another problem: we have no idea how RNA could self-replicate on its own in an early-Earth environment. It requires changes in environmental energy to do so, and we really haven't got any good understanding of this process yet... If you hear about something called "panspermia", this is another idea for how unicellular life arrived on Earth. Basically, the theory goes: life arrived on Earth riding comets or meteorites, from somewhere else in the universe. While totally possible, this alien life would still have to have gone through abiogenesis somewhere else in the universe, so it just pushes the problem of the origin of life further back rather than explaining it. So, ignore anything about panspermia if you're trying to learn about abiogenesis.

@@dylaneverett4586 There one missing piece to the puzzle that you left out i.e the emergence and development of the virus.

@@neosis4182 Viruses aren't entirely what you'd call 'living' and we're not sure if any of their ancestors were either. They could be the result of cells losing elements and becoming parasitic, or they could've evolved inside cells from bits of DNA that are able to move and copy themselves like plasmids or transposons. We don't actually know.

​@@dylaneverett4586 __ Given that the Earth seems to be a life-hosting planet, rather than a life-producing planet; the simpler and more likely explanation is that the genetic codes of life got transported to Earth via life-seeding aliens intending to disperse life throughout the universe. By all means outline why you do not prefer that as the more logical and likely explanation, but keep in mind that within a thousand years humanity itself will become life-seeding aliens when the genetic codes of life get sent one-way to candidate life-supporting planets in order to disperse life throughout the universe.

@@SpongeBobImagination Ok, as scientists we don't rule out possibilities like this until proven otherwise. This, as you have stated, could hypothetically be possible. That being said, it's unlikely for a few reasons, and it's definitely not "the simplest explanation" as you put it. - We haven't seen evidence of extraterrestrials, ever, no matter how far or thoroughly we search. We've barely even discovered bio-signatures of life outside of Earth, and even these are controversial. To explain your idea, you'd have to first explain the existence of extraterrestrials, how and why they would spread life across the universe (if by accident or purposefully, and why), where they themselves came from, why they haven't shown up since, how they traveled from other star systems (you'd need to explain FTL travel, or if not, why they'd bother to come here in generation ships), etc. etc. etc. - Those extraterrestrials would, themselves, have had to have gone through abiogenesis at some point. Thus, abiogenesis would still have had to occurred regardless, making this argument akin to the panspermia hypothesis - invalid when considering the true origins of life in the universe. It just pushes the origins of life further back in time rather than helping to explain the process. Again, this makes the hypothesis less parsimonious than the abiogenesis hypothesis. - LUCA, the last universal common ancestor of all life on Earth, based on DNA analysis, was most likely a hydrothermal vent endemic autotrophic microorganism (doi.org/10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.116). It was very simple and supports the hypothesis of abiogenesis/evolutionary divergence. - The argument that the Earth is "life hosting" rather than "life-producing" is invalid for numerous reasons. One, the Earth as we see it today is hardly comparable to the toxic, boiling mixing pot of chemicals and protoplanetary material that the Earth was when life first emerged on it. Two, if a series of chemical reactions began to occur in which life might arise again, the life that already thrives on our planet would out-compete, and if not, probably consume these simple RNA compounds. Many bacteria do this today through osmotrophy. The planet, through the appearance of life, has simply become incapable of going through abiogenesis a second time. There's many other reasons this is invalid... I could go on. Of course, the idea of life being transmitted by aliens isn't impossible. That being said, it's not parsimonious. In science, nothing is aliens... Until it's aliens. If other hypotheses exist, they're more parsimonious from our current understanding of the universe. If I were you I'd remain open to other possibilities. It's always good to speculate, but you should never be so sure of your ideas until they're tested and either proven or falsified - and your idea is not falsifiable, so it can't be tested, and therefore it's not of use to us as scientists. We don't currently know how life first appeared on Earth. It's better to be open to all the possibilities rather than to assume one is true, even if it sounds cooler than the others. Plus, trust experts on the topic. If they don't consider it a valid hypothesis, let's trust them on that assumption.

Multicellularity has evolved separately at least 25 times in eukaryotes and prokaryotes.

@@MegaAwesomeNick Well then. Good to know.

I was wondering the same thing, it seems odd for a single celled organism to have genes for being multicellular. It is almost like whales having genes for legs.

@@Triumph263 Strangely enough, whales did have legs and then lost them. :) -James

Nah I think it would be pretty unlikely, because there are a lot of different proteins which are found only in metazoa that are not present in choanoflagellates. Also with quite a few proteins such as ATP9, it is possible to compare their sequences across animals, choanoflagellates, and fungi (which branched off from animals before choanoflagellates) and see that the amino acid sequence almost looks like an intermediate between the animal and fungal version of the protein. (Sorry for the rant lol)

A Scenedesmus :) - James

That's Scenedesmus

Not sure if serious

@@fluffysheap What do you mean? I’m 🧐 serious.

The scientists who discovered them liked Greek.

The Greeks didnt discover them lol. A lot of scientists just use greek and latin stem words to name things because it sounds prestigious.

The names are just greek or latin lol, the first microscope was invented in 1635

We are working on it. :) -James

Its a scooby snack

It’s a scale so you can see the relative size of the objects shown.

Depends on what measurement you are referring to. For example 630x is the amount of microscope magnification, and 31um (13 millions of a meter) is a scale as mentioned by adobe doug

"...you humanoids" ? 🤔

@@LeRoyt97 with feet, legs arms and even a head - a humanoid. Aren't you one?

@@MrEiht er... I mean... yes of course 😉 I have all the normal amounts of heads and toes.

@@LeRoyt97 respect! Like a boss. Between us, look at an ant eater for example. So be glad to be humanoid-ish.