Humans With Green Skin Could Live Off Sunlight.

[Enmos]

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.

Of course.
[bold] But I would say that random chance lends a hand sometimes (or not of course). Random chance alone cannot be responsible for evolution. The results of the random chances are still under the influence of natural selection.
We pretty much agree though.

 

[Nasor]

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.

About half of what hits the surface will be visible light, most of the rest will be IR. Much of the IR could potentially be harvested too, if you could work out the right chemistry. But like I said, it would be very difficult chemistry to work out. The best "artificial photosynthesis" systems that chemists have designed are only around 13-14% efficient, only slightly better than plants. So again, it's theoretically possible, but it would be a very difficult problem to solve.

 

[DRZion]

About half of what hits the surface will be visible light, most of the rest will be IR. Much of the IR could potentially be harvested too, if you could work out the right chemistry. But like I said, it would be very difficult chemistry to work out. The best "artificial photosynthesis" systems that chemists have designed are only around 13-14% efficient, only slightly better than plants. So again, it's theoretically possible, but it would be a very difficult problem to solve.

You could probably get better efficiency if you only worked with one part of the spectrum. This is the case with photovoltaics, and I believe that it is the case with photosynthesis.

If I remember right carotenoids act as antennas that deliver light to the photoreaction center, as well as red-shift the light to a compatible wavelength.

If an organism was to be grown under artificial lighting only, then it would be possible to engineer it's photosystems to work with only the most preferred wavelengths. Perhaps we could engineer cows or fish or something to have these photosystems as a method to reduce the cost of protein.

 

[FreshHat]

To increase the surface to volume ratio, these green "people" need to evolve to a more pancake shape.

"It's not easy being green."
K.T. Frog

 

[DRZion]

Guys, think of the hungry african children.

 

[leighannlynn]

How odd would it be if the government began to pump chlorophyl (spelling error?) into us, in hopes of saving money in these hard, hard economic times. I mean, we wouldnt need to spend nearly as much on a monthly basis! Ahaha!

 

[Michael]

maybe in the future we could unfold a bio-solar panel that grows out of our back and bask in the sun-light for 8 hours INSTEAD of wasting it sleeping in the dark!

... just a thought!

 

[dixonmassey]

Sounds ludicrous at first, I know, but a sea slug has managed to do just that. To quote Frank Ryan from his excellent groundbreaking book 'Virolution':

Gosh, people, you are so behind the curve of human evolution. Don't you know about breatharians? http://www.breatharian.info/

This is a state of man (breatharian, inediate, non-eater) characterized (among other things) by the absence of eating, resulting from (or rather being a stage on the way to) expanding of the Consciousness sphere in which a person lives. In general an ideal (fully realized) inediate, breatharian, non-eater has no need to eat or drink to keep the body working perfectly. A breatharian consumes no food and no drink, he/she needs only air to nourish the body.

It's all about playing with chakras not green skin

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Gosh, people, you are so behind the curve of human evolution. Don't you know about breatharians? http://www.breatharian.info/

This is a state of man (breatharian, inediate, non-eater) characterized (among other things) by the absence of eating, resulting from (or rather being a stage on the way to) expanding of the Consciousness sphere in which a person lives. In general an ideal (fully realized) inediate, breatharian, non-eater has no need to eat or drink to keep the body working perfectly. A breatharian consumes no food and no drink, he/she needs only air to nourish the body.

It's all about playing with chakras not green skin

You can't be serious, surely? I've seen a woman claim this in a TV doc, but she looked thin as hell and would probably collapse if she had to anything stenuous. Even her daughter said that she would secretly eat something, especially if she (the daughter) was eating some chocolate etc.

 

[Billy T]

... Don't you know about breatharians? This is a state of man (breatharian, inediate, non-eater) characterized (among other things) by the absence of eating, resulting from (or rather being a stage on the way to) expanding of the Consciousness sphere in which a person lives. ...

I suffer from the silly idea that mass can not be created by conscious will.

For example the air taken into the lungs with each breath has ~0.035% CO2 but the air then exhaled prior to the next breath has about 30 times more CO2 in it. Thus, with each breath cycle, one exhales ~30 times more carbon atoms than one inhales. Where and how are these extra 29 carbon atoms made?

When we learn how this carbon is produced, we can stop mining coal and power modern economies just by breathing.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

maybe in the future we could unfold a bio-solar panel that grows out of our back and bask in the sun-light for 8 hours INSTEAD of wasting it sleeping in the dark!

... just a thought!

I thought of a more people-friendly use of the virus DNA technology: Green Fish that live off sunlight! These would stay near the surface to catch the sun's rays and not have to eat anything in the food chain. The ocean could be filled with edible fish all massing at the surface. Good for humans, whales, dolphins etc. Would anyone object to this as being a genuine path of enquiry into solving the coming world food shortage? If feasible, would there be an objection to this 'messing with nature' in order to feed the world? I think that it has some potential personally.

 

[Enmos]

I thought of a more people-friendly use of the virus DNA technology: Green Fish that live off sunlight! These would stay near the surface to catch the sun's rays and not have to eat anything in the food chain.

Nice for messing up the ecosystem.

 

[DRZion]

I thought of a more people-friendly use of the virus DNA technology: Green Fish that live off sunlight! These would stay near the surface to catch the sun's rays and not have to eat anything in the food chain. The ocean could be filled with edible fish all massing at the surface. Good for humans, whales, dolphins etc. Would anyone object to this as being a genuine path of enquiry into solving the coming world food shortage? If feasible, would there be an objection to this 'messing with nature' in order to feed the world? I think that it has some potential personally.

Hmm. This is interesting. From what i learned about ocean ecology its usually not sunlight that is a limiting factor but some nutrient/element. However, because these are FISH, they may be able to migrate from areas of high nutrient concentration to low nutrient concentration once they had their share.

This would still support bird and large fish life because these fish would effectively create a protein source that starts close to the top of the food chain. Some whales can eat photosynthetic krill directly, but most other animals have to eat smaller fish that eat smaller fish that eat micro organisms that eat unicellular bacteria. A lot of energy is wasted on metabolism this way. A photosynthetic fish would support birds and larger fish. Who cares about microorganisms anyhow?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Nice for messing up the ecosystem.

In what way do you think it would be 'messed up'. How about different but essentially a lot better for humans. Comet ocean impacts probably create a big mess of the ecosystem, not Green Fish that live of sunlight.

Hmm. This is interesting. From what i learned about ocean ecology its usually not sunlight that is a limiting factor but some nutrient/element. However, because these are FISH, they may be able to migrate from areas of high nutrient concentration to low nutrient concentration once they had their share.

This would still support bird and large fish life because these fish would effectively create a protein source that starts close to the top of the food chain. Some whales can eat photosynthetic krill directly, but most other animals have to eat smaller fish that eat smaller fish that eat micro organisms that eat unicellular bacteria. A lot of energy is wasted on metabolism this way. A photosynthetic fish would support birds and larger fish. Who cares about microorganisms anyhow?

I glad you appreciate the idea . It does make sense, doesn't it. It's probably a relatively easy solution to the world food shortages of the future compared to the sketchy alternatives. I wonder whether the idea will ever reach the mainstream. btw, my proposal is the halibut fish; nice and flat to catch the sun's rays Halibut in the sea. It could hide in the sand at the bottom during the night for protection.

 

[DRZion]

I glad you appreciate the idea . It does make sense, doesn't it. It's probably a relatively easy solution to the world food shortages of the future compared to the sketchy alternatives. I wonder whether the idea will ever reach the mainstream. btw, my proposal is the halibut fish; nice and flat to catch the sun's rays Halibut in the sea. It could hide in the sand at the bottom during the night for protection.

Do you know if halibut do this naturally? I suppose if there are minerals in the sand the fish could absorb them during the night.

If I understand right there is the most life in nutrient rich upwellings, or areas where nutrient rich water mixes with nutrient poor water. This means that there must be areas in the water column that have more nutrients, however life is not able to use these nutrients because there isn't any sunlight. If the halibut was a filter feeder, it could potentially get its nutrients from the deeps at night while obtaining sunlight during the day.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Do you know if halibut do this naturally? I suppose if there are minerals in the sand the fish could absorb them during the night.

If I understand right there is the most life in nutrient rich upwellings, or areas where nutrient rich water mixes with nutrient poor water. This means that there must be areas in the water column that have more nutrients, however life is not able to use these nutrients because there isn't any sunlight. If the halibut was a filter feeder, it could potentially get its nutrients from the deeps at night while obtaining sunlight during the day.

Here's a useful link: halibut lifecycle. There's no obvious reason why the fish should bask at the surface that I can see. The genetic experiment would be an interesting one though and perhaps the question of acquiring nutrients can be overcome. If the sea-slug can change it's ways and survive on sunlight then I don't see why the ingenuity of modern humanity can't do the same with fish. I'm even going to email Frank Ryan with the suggestion. It could even save the world from mass starvation and impending wars. Worth a try surely?

Edit: good news for the 'Save The Polar Bear Society'! The only downside may be the construction of shark nets across sea-bathing areas. Well worth it in my opinion.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

DRZion, here's Frank Ryan's email reply:

Re: Excellent Book + Virus DNA Technology Could Feed The World‏
From: Frank Ryan <email address removed>
Sent: 01 September 2009 11:36:27
To: Alan Lowey <email address removed>

Dear Alan,

Thank you for writing to me -- I'm really glad you liked the book. Can I suggest you consider putting up a simple review on amazon.co.uk. Somebody called Julian Porter put up a derogatory review that is full of scientific nonsense -- it's so ridiculous I can't believe he has any real scientific background and so I feel that more commonsensical opinions should be encouraged. My scientific colleagues have been very annoyed by this daft review and several are planning to write in, whether as reviews or comments. But I would prefer people like yourself, non-scientists and the people I wrote the book for, to ignore Porter and express your sincere opinions.

But this is a storm in a teapot and I'm delighted to add that many scientists, some very senior, are now taking up the concept of viral symbiosis. It started in botany, as you have read in the book, but now zoological virologists, symbiologists and doctors are becoming interested in applying it in many different fields. It's satisfying and encouraging to discover that your work, over 14 or 15 years, is now proving useful to others. Maybe people will take you up on your idea and start to develop the concept of capturing the energy of sunlight in more biological ways.

The medical extrapolations are, of course, very important to me. The first two papers on these have now been published, with papers on the autoimmune diseases and cancer already written and accepted for publication in October and November.

Thank you again for your kind comments,

With best wishes,

Frank Ryan


-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Lowey <email address removed>
To: Frank Ryan <email address removed>
Sent: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 4:16
Subject: Excellent Book + Virus DNA Technology Could Feed The World

Dear Frank Ryan,

thanks for such an excellent book, I really enjoyed it, despite being a non-biologist. I had a bit of a revelation recently; couldn't the concept of the sea-slug which lives off sunlight be applied to fish, the halibut for example (http://www.doughoughton.com/php/imagepage.php?id=161718&image=../webpage/jpg/161/161718.jpg)? A photosynthetic fish could fill the world's oceans and be a contender to feed the world population of the near future. It should be a valid avenue of enquiry at least, shouldn't it?

best wishes,
Alan Lowey

 

[madanthonywayne]

Is there any living thing in nature that can move quickly (as animals do) and lives solely off of photosynthesis? I'm pretty sure that the only plants capable of any sort of quick movement are the ones that eat meat like the venus flytrap. I think this fact suggests that photosythesis doesn't provide enough energy for active organisms such as animals or humans. At best, it could serve as a supplement.

 

[Billy T]

Is there any living thing in nature that can move quickly (as animals do) and lives solely off of photosynthesis? I'm pretty sure that the only plants capable of any sort of quick movement are the ones that eat meat like the venus flytrap. I think this fact suggests that photosythesis doesn't provide enough energy for active organisms such as animals or humans. At best, it could serve as a supplement.

You are correct, of course, but facts are unimportant to DRZion and a few others. For example. posts 2. 26. 42. and 50 point out that mass to grow larger is not available from sun light, one can not exhale ~30 times more carbon in CO2 with each breath than was inhaled, the the surface to volume ratio to met the energy requirments corresponds to transfomimng humans into a pan-cake shape, etc.

I will be glad when this tread is moved to the ceaspool where it belongs.

 

[DRZion]

DRZion, here's Frank Ryan's email reply:

The fact that there are precedents, for instance the sea slug, may suggest that this is in fact possible.

From my limited knowledge of biology it seems that viral symbiosis is not that far-fetched. Viruses range from incredibly simple to incredibly complex. The mimi virus has a genome larger than some microbes; in fact it has other viruses predating on it.

At multiple points in the history of evolution one microbe specie actually incorporated another specie into it's own structure; this is how chloroplasts and mitochondria originated. These species continue to act in a symbiosis where both the microbe and it's organelle carry their own DNA.

I don't know too much about the theory, but biology is a very dynamic field and breakthroughs happen more often than in the fields of physics and mathematics.

You are correct, of course, but facts are unimportant to DRZion and a few others. For example. posts 2. 26. 42. and 50 point out that mass to grow larger is not available from sun light, one can not exhale ~30 times more carbon in CO2 with each breath than was inhaled, the the surface to volume ratio to met the energy requirments corresponds to transfomimng humans into a pan-cake shape, etc.

I will be glad when this tread is moved to the ceaspool where it belongs.

Yes, but fish have a much larger area:volume ratio, meaning that fish could specifically be engineered to meet the requirements of photosynthesis. Also, fish have more carbon available than we do, since there is plenty of dissolved organic matter in the oceans. It is often other nutrients that are in short supply.

The fact that this has not happened yet may be due to the large evolutionary leap that may only be administered by man. During the agricultural revolution many species branched out and some animals now do things that would have been ridiculous otherwise.