/an/ - Animals & Nature » Thread #345354

[41 / 0 / ?]

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 01:50:00 No.345354 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>345744

<- This animal has symbiotic algae and isn't sessile like coral. This has me wondering. Would it be possible for animals to develop chloroplasts and hunt food as well as photosynthesize?

Think of a Lizard who basks in the sun photosynthesizes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 01:58:00 No.345357 Report

Quoted By:

What is it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 02:07:00 No.345365 Report

Quoted By:

Well, why would some creature, say
>>Lizard
need both? (atm at least)

maybe when food is scarce, animals will do both or die (not including humans as we build additional pylons, etc).

But there is no need to get energy in two different ways.

Also (I'm guessing)
>>Lizard
Wouldn't be able to hunt for food if he used photosynthesis because he would use up the energy he is gathering faster than he can gather it

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 02:08:00 No.345366 Report

Quoted By: >>345367

Lizards don't photosynthesize. They bask in the sun because they're cold-blooded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 02:09:00 No.345367 Report

Quoted By: >>345368

>>345366
OP meant if he theoretically did

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 02:10:00 No.345368 Report

Quoted By:

>>345367
Then lizard would die.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 02:23:00 No.345376 Report

Quoted By: >>345395

Sap sucker slugs eat algae and steal their chloroplasts witch they store in flaps on their back for their own use. This is the closest to an animal truly capable of photosynthesis on their own that I’m aware of. This is a picture of a species I see here in Hawaii on a regular basis.

Another organism is corals which are animals but they form a symbiotic relationship with algae in their bodies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 02:28:00 No.345378 Report

Quoted By:

Any terrestrial animal that is mobile requires orders of magnitude more energy than photosynthesis can provide. In other words, the amount of energy that reaches a lizard's back in the form of sunlight is essentially nothing compared to what the lizard would use by moving around.

Though, this scheme might work with an aquatic creature that simply rides about in currents. It wouldn't need energy for locomotion, so at that point what little energy it could get from photosynthesis might actually be significant.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 02:35:00 No.345380 Report

Quoted By: >>345384 >>345873

Good Question.
Of course it's possible, but Is there an evolutionary route to it?
Also, the energy that species will be getting from hunting will be superior in quantity and rate than that obtained by photosynthesis.
That species would require an insane amount of chloroplasts.
If we were keener on biology and mathematics we could calculate for example the rate of energy consumption for humans and the rate of energy stored by the chloroplasts and try to get obtain the number of chloroplasts required to balance things out. As well as hours of sun exposure everyday and other variables...etc.
What would really be awesome if they could develop chloroplasts that could electrolyze water...

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 02:55:00 No.345384 Report

Quoted By: >>345420

>>345380

Theoretically there could be an evolutionary path. Perhaps a food item that the animal hunts is unavailable during a particular season. The animal could use photosynthesis during a kind of partial hibernation (in the sun of course) to keep body mechanics working.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 03:16:00 No.345394 Report

Quoted By:

Photosynthesis still needs an in-flow of nutrients to work, not just sunlight alone. Living things also need to take in more material in order to grow and/or renew themselves. Since a photosynthetic animal wouldn't have a root network, it would need to eat something.

Though they might be able to use it to get more milage out of their food, since they'd be processing it twice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 03:18:00 No.345395 Report

Quoted By: >>345396

>>345376

Worth noting that those guys don't just hijack chloroplasts (those can't keep running on their own without nuclear DNA support) they have literally taken on some of the algae's genome so that they maintain their own chloroplasts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 03:31:00 No.345396 Report

Quoted By:

>>345395
Wow, that's very interesting. So it eats the algae, and maintains the genome to change it's own, so to speak? That's amazing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 05:03:00 No.345420 Report

Quoted By:

>>345384
hibernation in the open == death

"Hey look, a tasty lizard treat!"

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 05:46:00 No.345429 Report

Quoted By:

someone talkin about lizards takin in sunlight?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 08:32:00 No.345506 Report

Quoted By: >>345507 >>345570

Wow, I have been wondering exactly the same thing for a long time, and whenever I ask anyone who I think should know, they look at me as if I'm insane.
Thanks for the info in this thread.
My science fiction McGuffin is insects with chloroplasts, that go to oases to sip fresh water at night and fly off into the Sahara to rest and photosynthesize by day. They're safe in the desert because nothing flies out there to eat them. Eventually they take over the world. :-)
Actually I read an SF short story recently about modified humans called "greenies" that had chloroplasts in their skin and liked walking around naked in the sun. Can't remember title/author.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 08:38:00 No.345507 Report

Quoted By:

>>345506
Found the "greenies" story I was referring to...
GARCÍA y ROBERTSON, Rodrigo
Oxygen Rising, (nv) Asimov’s Feb 2005
Year’s Best SF 11, ed. David G. Hartwell & Kathryn Cramer, HarperCollins/Eos 2006

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 11:19:00 No.345570 Report

Quoted By: >>345718

>>345506
I think that's the best model for this kind of species. The insects would look for high trees to sit on and photosynthesis for a long time, in camouflage with the tree of course. Steal water from the trees.

And when mating season arrives, they burn up their stored energy; give birth and die.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 19:43:00 No.345716 Report

Quoted By:

photosynthesis wouldn't create anywhere near the same amount of glucose that an omnivore would be able to consume in a single sitting...if omnivore animals were to divert evolutionary resources to having photosynthesis, too, they wouldn't be able to hunt/graze as effectively.

so, it makes more sense for creatures to either specialize solely on photosynthesis (plants/algae/etc) or feeding...symbiotes (polyps/corals/etc) and crap are the only intermediates afaik...and they're pretty much stationary so they're more like plants anyways

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 19:45:00 No.345718 Report

Quoted By:

>>345570
>>And when mating season arrives, they burn up their stored energy; give birth and die.
>>give birth and die.
>>die

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 21:19:00 No.345744 Report

Quoted By:

>>345354
It's possible, but it's not around right now because there's no reason for it to be. If we got alot more sunlight and most of the animals died off then we would see an explosion in plant life and maybe animals would soon mutate and be able to photosynthesize.

Our theory is that way back when eukaryotes (cells that make animals and plants) had no chloroplasts or mitochondria, who lived as seperate organisms. But these larger cells sucked the energy making cells in, and life became easier for the both of them. This is why *we think* mitochondria have different DNA than the eukaryotes in which they live.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 21:29:00 No.345748 Report

Quoted By:

The real question you should be asking is why hasn't any eukaryotic life form developed a way to fix nitrogen. Since it has been shown that nitrate is the limiting factor in almost all terrestrial environments a plant which could fix it's own nitrogen without the help of bacteria could easily take over, it's protective protein armour making it immune to attack and whatnot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Nov 2008 23:27:00 No.345782 Report

Quoted By: >>345790 >>345800

Photosynthesis is advantageous for sessile lifeforms, but in reality does not produce enough energy to feed the needs of motile species

If any animal were to through some sheer weirdness develop chloroplasts, it would simply stop moving to conserve energy. It would become more and more energy efficient until any part of its body that wastes energy would be selected out. The animal would develop something to keep itself upright, something that does not require enough energy, like a calcium/chitin/cellulose skeleton. Then it would develop alternative methods of mating and defending itself without having to move.

Oh wait. That animal just became a plant. BORING.

Only way i can think of is if humans start genetically engineering their skin to make a multitude of colors, from purples to reds, greens and yellows by genetically engineering chloroplasts in the skin. It would still be largely cosmetic.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Nov 2008 00:00:00 No.345790 Report

Quoted By: >>345800

>>345782
Maybe the Plantimals would have tentacles with which to whip things that piss them off while they don't move? Maybe they'll retain only basic movement to move into the sun if they live in a shady area.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Nov 2008 00:01:00 No.345791 Report

Quoted By: >>345796

ITT: Spore

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Nov 2008 00:27:00 No.345796 Report

Quoted By:

>>345791
Nah, I actually learned alot from this thread.

So it's actually just 'cheaper' to either be a plant or an animal. Ok, now that that's out of the way, A plant with a brain. Could that work?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Nov 2008 00:36:00 No.345800 Report

Quoted By: >>345874

>>345790

That's what plants already do. Some carnivorous plants snap at shit they don't like (say, those disgusting animals. Who do they think they are, moving around all over the place and wasting energy like that? ) and plants already have ways to point their roots to the ground (statoliths) and their stalks to the sun (auxins, sure they don't move to the sun as much as they grow into it, but it does work so it's okay. )

>>345782

You would need to alter human genome too I suppose, else plastids don't work. A whole lot of unnecessary mess.

Also you guys have to notice that chloroplasts are essentially a good way of getting supplementary energy, as the OP points out. It is so good a method, in fact, that our slug E. chlorotica is already doing it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Nov 2008 02:52:00 No.345860 Report

Quoted By:

Also, I'm not saying it should REPLACE eating completely, I'm saying it should supplement eating.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Nov 2008 03:49:00 No.345873 Report

Quoted By: >>346015

fdhg;dfgl NO. Humans don't have the capacity for endosymbiosis. You are utterly retarded, OP.

>>345380
YOU are MORE retarded.

/RRRAGE.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Nov 2008 03:49:00 No.345874 Report

Quoted By: >>345875

>>345800
its not that good of a method

Think of how much surface area there is in a sapling, how thin it is and still needing all the energy it can get. Now think how much energy you could get from digesting a sapling.

A humans only exposed his head, shoulders and a bit of his back. That's enough surface area to get the energy of a tomato in a few months.

No, what i was thinking was that plastids contain pigments, and our skin can be locally pigmented with flower colored pigments.

Also, who told you you would have to change the genome to allow for plastids? No such change is necessary, they can be introduced in the embryo dermis independantly

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Nov 2008 03:54:00 No.345875 Report

Quoted By: >>345879

>>345874

NO. NO. NO. Stop being retarded. You and the rest of the thread, stop being retarded right now.

The reason we no longer engage in endosymbiosis is because we have immune systems to prevent invasion at a cellular level. You're talking about re-engineering our entire genome, not just a "part" that gets introduced with a few little amino acids in a particular location.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Nov 2008 03:58:00 No.345879 Report

Quoted By: >>345882

>>345875
You are incorrect on two points

The immune system cannot react to an infusion of chloroplasts in the embryo, as well as the 'need' to rearrange the genome

No changes are necessary

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Nov 2008 04:01:00 No.345882 Report

Quoted By: >>345884

>>345879

skdhsdlgh yes, yes it can. You have to grow up sometime. The embryo that you injected cholorplasts into recieves antigens in breast milk, the antigens trigger an immune response, you lose your plastids and/or kill the child in the process.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Nov 2008 04:09:00 No.345884 Report

Quoted By: >>345888

>>345882
>embryo
>breast milk
You need to delete your posts before someone sees.

You obviously don't know jack shit. I, on the other hand, grew up with old Jack.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Nov 2008 04:14:00 No.345888 Report

Quoted By: >>345892

>>345884

The embryo that then must logically grow into a baby and must ingest breast milk which contains the agents (including antigens) it needs to program its immune system. Sorry you failed the leap of logic.

Calling me a jackass sure lends credibility to your side of the argument. :0

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Nov 2008 04:22:00 No.345892 Report

Quoted By: >>345915

>>345888
Hmmmmmmmmm. No.

A tissue transplant in in vivo embryos has proven to be resistant to any antigens produced by the child.

You may replace the brain of an embryo with he brain of another surgically without worrying about antigen-antibody reactions

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Nov 2008 05:24:00 No.345915 Report

Quoted By:

>>345892
>>345892

Yeah, that's pretty much why chimeras exist and we have half-goat half-sheep monstrosities around. Still a long way to human/plant hybrids, but we're getting there.

Though, chloroplasts can't survive without support from the plant cell since most of chloroplast genome is degenerated and nuclear genes regulate chloroplasts. You can't simply place them in the skin and expect them to work well continously.

Other animals do this, but the chloroplasts are only active for a few days and have to be replaced constantly.

And the animal overall benefits from having chloroplasts so "rather eat the tree than to assimilate it" isn't a good argument. Currently the animals do digest the rest of what they eat (well, as much as they can without completely destroying all plastids) before integrating the chloroplasts and beginning photosynthesis. Had the animal been capable of maintaining those indefinitely (as seems to be the case of E. chlorotica) it would only need to extract a limited amount of chloroplasts before enjoying the benefits of both full nutrients algae provide and photosynethesis.

Shas'O Faiz !!oHNZ1QN/tbk

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO unknown.jpg, 0B, 0x0

Shas'O Faiz !!oHNZ1QN/tbk Fri 28 Nov 2008 05:29:00 No.345917 Report

Quoted By:

Pic related.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Nov 2008 08:04:00 No.345974 Report

Quoted By:

I wish I could photosynthesize.

Frankengun !FUCKu1DaHo

Frankengun !FUCKu1DaHo Fri 28 Nov 2008 08:37:00 No.345981 Report

Quoted By:

OP pic looks like a bottlecap.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Nov 2008 10:36:00 No.346015 Report

Quoted By:

>>345873
You are a fool. I was asking if animals could have chloroplasts, not if humans cou... It's easier to just call you a douchebag.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches