what was the first living person male, or female?
147011
It all depends on what you believe.  The Biblical answer would be Adam, a male, however if you are not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim then you have to go with information like the below:\n\n"After six years of analysis, fossil hunters in Africa have confirmed the discovery of the oldest fossilized remains of modern humans yet found -- portions of skulls belonging to people who lived 160,000 years ago. Paleontologists say the discovery adds detail to a crucial period in human evolution, and confirms the hypothesis that modern humans evolved in Africa. NPR's Christopher Joyce reports."\n\n"Two of the skulls from Herto belonged to adult males, and one to a child of six or seven. Each of the adult skulls was remarkably big."\n\nSo, I guess to answer your question from a scientific standpoint, the oldest human found to date is male.
605269
Don't know, but I have read that the total number people alive today is far greater than the total number of people who have ever lived and died.\n\nThe short answer is; everyone who has survived birth.
430075
considering that you are asking this on a science forum, I would say that we have absolutely no way of knowing and would never have a consensus even if we could travel back in time.  Humans came about slowly and for someone to point to one individual and say "this is the first true human being" is impossible.
358571
Male + Female + SEX = Pregnant.  That is a true statement.
119171
The first organisms to live on the earth belonged to the kingdom archaebacteria.
61800
The longest living person? \nIve been living my entire life...Oh and I'm AMERICAN
885511
well mythology speaks of adam as the first human on this planet. hence the answer is man. eve was supposed to be fashioned from adam's rib. so probably she came later!
59826
The first person I thought of was Gregor Mendel, but everyone already pretty much knew that plants were alive already, he just showed that they have genetics.
721891
The fruit came first.\n\nRead up!
868975
The first humans were black, if that's what you mean. Adam and Eve were Jewish, naturally.\n\n=p
103370
I think you mean hermaphrodite. That is an organism (even human, but rarely) that has both male and female sex organs.
211447
Literally there WAS a Female that actually WAS BORN as a Female. She sorta shaved her head to look male and acted such as a male. I forget the years/date(s) she got away with it. But it DID actually exist. IF my memory IS correct, it was in the 1700s AD. She was Italian.
553535
You are probably thinking of the genetic studies that concluded that the most recent human common matrilineal ancestor was a woman in Africa about 150,000 years ago.  Those studies examined mitochondrial DNA from various sample groups existing today.  Those studies are valid, but only demonstrate what they purport to: everyone alive today is descended from a woman in Africa (almost certainly black) who lived about 150,000 years ago and there is no other more recent woman from whom everyone is descended.\n\nThat does not mean she was the first human or even the first human female.  She lived in a group, all of whom were human.  She had a mother and father, both of whom were human.\n\nIt is never going to be possible to say any particular person was the first human.  The transformation from homo erectus to homo sapiens took a very long time and occurred very gradually.  They sort of fade into one another.  You can't single out any one point in the process and say Here!  Here is where it happened!
1111575
If you go to Google.com, and type in "oldest living people" you will find some answers.  See the sources below.  \n\nby the way, most of the questions on this site can be answered similarly.
376003
The first living cells were (big word coming up) heterotrophic anaerobes. This meant that they were other feeders (fed on naturally occuring amino acids) without oxygen. It wasn't until later that photosynthetic (organisms able to use energy from the Sun) developed. \n\nhttp://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kids_space/qlife_ani.html\n\nThere is still debate within the scintific community if viruses are actually living.  The need a living host in order to function and reproduce.\n\nhttp://www.beyondbooks.com/lif72/2c.asp
271982
Good point Pazion. But I still say in millions of years we still have seen no physical evidence that this is genetic. There have been no new emergence of a new gender. We are still born male and female. Again, in the next million years we may find that we were wrong in our assumptions. But we will be dead and therefore we still will not care. So it's a lost point even discussing it.
1054657
This question has been asked in this forum so many times - it's right up there with aliens and the Bermuda Triangle.\n\nWhat came first was the chicken WITH the egg. For more than a billion years there was life (whole beings) on earth with progeny but without eggs. It's known as asexual reproduction - fission - cell division. There were no males or females just clones. Sexual reproduction using cell division to separate cells into haploid gametes arose much later and the roots of this are explained by biology. But I agree it's a difficult subject and most people are not capable of understanding.\n\nI should also mention the Darwin was not concerned with the origin of life - modern culture has heaped that onto evolution which correctly only deals with living populations after life arises.