Humans With Green Skin Could Live Off Sunlight.

[Nasor]

You are overlooking one thing, even if we were completely flattened, at most half of our surface area would be sunlit. And that's if you keep an optimum angle to the sun at all times.

Significant light would still be hitting the non-sun side. But even if you assume that a person only has one m^2 getting light, that still gets you enough flux to power a person (assuming you can harvest it efficiently, which you probably cant).

Of course, there's also the possibility that people could use grow-lights on themselves. Maybe organic LEDs or something similar lining the inside of their clothes, constantly irradiating their skin.

 

[Enmos]

Significant light would still be hitting the non-sun side. But even if you assume that a person only has one m^2 getting light, that still gets you enough flux to power a person (assuming you can harvest it efficiently, which you probably cant).

You're right.. the un-sunlit side would still receive light.

Of course, there's also the possibility that people could use grow-lights on themselves. Maybe organic LEDs or something similar lining the inside of their clothes, constantly irradiating their skin.

lol I'd rather just eat
Besides, you'd still have to drink anyway.


Also, in order to make this work we will probably have to get rid of the melanin in our skin, which would expose us to too much UV radiation.
We will probably get problems with our stomach and bowels. And, assuming the CO[sub]2[/sub] is just taken from our blood, there will probably be respiration problems as well.

 

[DRZion]

lol I'd rather just eat
Besides, you'd still have to drink anyway.

Yeah right! I'll just hook up a hose to the bathroom sink, get in an ergonomic position, and bathe in the glow of the monitor... for hourssssss.

Hell, if I'm doing something especially vigorous in front of the computer I might flip a few lights for the extra juice.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I'm no biologist or geneticist.

Yes, we noticed. This is amply demonstrated by statements like:

This is in direct contrast to the Darwinian view that genetic mutation is the only mechanism for natural selection.

I would have thought that someone who knows little about biology or genetics would not be attempting to make definitive statements regarding the mechanisms of natural selection, let alone make them with emphasis added.

But that's just me.

 

[quantum_wave]

I had a girlfriend with green patches on her skin, the doctor said is was a kind of plant but it was harmless.

I know of a beetle that has a unigue exoskeleton (is that the right word) that looks green to the human eye but is actually a honeycomb pattern of different colors. Something about an illusion that only the naked eye can see? Thought you might be interested.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article1711955.ece

 

[Billy T]

A ballpark figure for human energy consumption is 100W. Adults have about 2 square meters of skin, and the average solar flux on the earth's surface is about 160W/m^2. So theoretically you could get more than enough energy (assuming you were outside all the time and were naked). But I believe even the best photosynthesizing organisms are only able to achieve something like 10% light-to-chemical energy efficiency, so in practice you would probably have a very hard time coming up with a photosystem that was efficient enough.

Thanks for confirming my statement with some numbers. I will mention a few more facts:

Only a max of about 1/2 (usually much less unless streched out flat on the ground) of the 2m^2 would be normal to the sun's rays.

A significant part would be longer than visible wavelengths (near IR) and useless for fuel (but helpful if not in the tropics in winter.)

So when this is considered you might, streached out flat all day nude in the tropics, get ~10% of your energy requirements, and of course as I noted before, your need molecules to repair cells etc.

 

[Doreen]

I live off sunlight already. I have quite a few intermediaries, some of who have green 'skin'. I would hate to think we would do some GM shit and then think we don't need, for example, trees or oceans. The trends out there are ominous however.

 

[DRZion]

The human body uses 100 watts when not vigorously exercising, as much as a small lightbulb.

Efficiency could perhaps be over 10%, assuming the chlorophyll was engineered to match a specific light bulb. Certain light bulbs emit light in only one discrete band (fluorescent), so that the chlorophyll could be very highly specialized in transforming this wavelength.

Since only one side is going to be useful, one could just get a large patch on the back as to avoid social stigma. After work, instead of eating dinner you could lay down and turn the lamps on while watching TV.

This would be an augmentation particularly well liked by hobos who carry around their fluorescents everywhere, feeding off of outdoor power outlets when no one is looking.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Yes, and ?

The standard source of genetic change is considered to be random, whereas this DNA transfer by viruses is not. A quote from the book back page:

On Sunday, 12th February, 2001 the code for the entire human genome was finally deciphered. Embedded in the code were large fragments that were directly derived from viruses. These fragments were evidence for the extraordinary role of viruses in the evolution of all life on earth and their vital involvement in a huge range of biological processes. 'Virolution' is the definitive guide to this amazing new field of research that has redefined the science of evolution and disease.

btw, the body would also be using less energy that we previously used in finding, processing, digesting and excreting food. This needs to be taken account of in the energy calculations.

 

[Enmos]

The standard source of genetic change is considered to be random, whereas this DNA transfer by viruses is not. A quote from the book back page:


btw, the body would also be using less energy that we previously used in finding, processing, digesting and excreting food. This needs to be taken account of in the energy calculations.

So ? You said that the Darwinian view is that natural selection only takes place by means of random mutation, which is absolutely not true.
And natural selection is not random.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Yes, and ?

So ? You said that the Darwinian view is that natural selection only takes place by means of random mutation, which is absolutely not true.

Okay, so I missed out sexual reproduction?

 

[Enmos]

Okay, so I missed out sexual reproduction?

What?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

What?

You're not interested in the underlying argument that the standard genetic mutations are considered to be random, but this new gene flow by viruses is considered to be more organised? This is totally uninteresting to you, is it?

 

[Enmos]

You're not interested in the underlying argument that the standard genetic mutations are considered to be random, but this new gene flow by viruses is considered to be more organised? This is totally uninteresting to you, is it?

What the fuck do you think natural selection is ? Just random mutation ?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

What the fuck do you think natural selection is ? Just random mutation ?

You're being awkward and I'm not interested enough to reply anymore. Read the book.

 

[Enmos]

You're being awkward and I'm not interested enough to reply anymore. Read the book.

lol

Educate yourself before making a thread.

 

[Enmos]

Just a little hint for you common, you seem to be confusing sources for genetic variation with natural selection.

Mutation, sexual reproduction, genetic recombination, and gene-flow are sources for genetic variation within a population. And genetic material inserted by viruses go under mutation.
Natural selection and genetic drift are two mechanisms within evolution that act on these variations.

 

[DRZion]

And natural selection is not random.

As a microbiology and molecular genetics major, I can say that there are texts that oppose natural selection as a major mechanisms of evolution. These favor a more random model where natural selection does not have a large impact on the evolution of species; a lot more weight is attributed to genetic drift.. I do not agree but I don't really understand it very well.

 

[Enmos]

As a microbiology and molecular genetics major, I can say that there are texts that oppose natural selection as a major mechanisms of evolution. These favor a more random model where natural selection does not have a large impact on the evolution of species; a lot more weight is attributed to genetic drift.. I do not agree but I don't really understand it very well.

Any gene frequency change caused by genetic drift still has to 'go through natural selection'.
Natural selection is the process by which genes or combinations of genes that are beneficial/detrimental towards survival and reproduction are rewarded/'punished' with a(n) above average/below average number of offspring, causing the beneficial/detrimental genes or combination of genes to increase/decrease in the population.
Natural selection acts upon the gene pool regardless of how its composition came to be.

 

[DRZion]

Any gene frequency change caused by genetic drift still has to 'go through natural selection'.
Natural selection is the process by which genes or combinations of genes that are beneficial/detrimental towards survival and reproduction are rewarded/'punished' with a(n) above average/below average number of offspring, causing the beneficial/detrimental genes or combination of genes to increase/decrease in the population.
Natural selection acts upon the gene pool regardless of how its composition came to be.

Yes, this is all very true and agrees with my understanding of evolution. It is without a doubt that organisms adapt to their environments. However, I think that this is a very technical argument where natural selection and genetic drift are strictly defined mathematical terms...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift#Genetic_drift_versus_natural_selection

This sums up what I read in the text last year:
"For example, while disadvantageous mutations are usually eliminated quickly in large populations, new advantageous mutations are almost as vulnerable to loss through genetic drift as are neutral mutations. It is not until the allele frequency for the advantageous mutation reaches a certain threshold that genetic drift will have little effect."
So, sometimes it is random chance that pushes evolution instead of selection.