Humans With Green Skin Could Live Off Sunlight.
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
Nicely put DRZion. Maybe the technology should be experimented with within the turbot and halibut farming industry to start with: Turbot & Halibut farming.
Those are certainly the people that could make it happen. I'm worried about how chloroplasts would get expressed on only the skin of the Halibut. If chloroplasts have to be maintained inside the flesh, and on the surface of the fish it may be a big metabolic disadvantage. Perhaps the sea-slug could explain some of this.
I even emailed the fish farming link with the suggestion and have written it into the review of Virolution on Amazon! This is forward thinking technology that is years away, but I hope that in the distant future it actually comes to fruition. You never know.
Last edited:
Check out this related link: Did Prehistoric Viruses Trigger Human Evolution? A Galaxy Classic
Yes. Thanks, but its highly speculative in its conclusions.
Frank Ryan
Registered Member
From the author of Virolution
Hi,
As the author of virolution, it's kind of nice to discover a book you wrote being the subject of discussion. I very much liked the humour of some of the contributors. Virolution was a peculiar book to write in many ways. I had to complete it in five months (so it could be published straight away to fit with the 150 years anniversary of first publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species). Unlike my other popular science books, I was encouraged to write much of my own experiences in developing concepts such as viral symbiosis and genomic creativity.
I can believe that it surprised a lot of readers. I get the same initial response whenever I lecture -- and I lecture to a very wide variety of audiences, from molecular geneticists to Cafe Scientifique. But once people grasp the basic ideas, which really are quite straightforward, our eyes open onto a wider vision of how evolution works. In the case of our human evolution, the implications really are strange, even startling -- but also very interesting.
I'd rather interact with members than chunter on about the book. But I suppose I should try to answer a few questions that have cropped up from members already and them promise to field any more questions or comments that people might have.
Does the book set out to replace conventional views on evolutionary biology?
No -- the new knowledge is best seen as the opening of a new chapter that essentially complements the book of knowledge we have already. This applies to biology and it also applies to the important extrapolations to medicine.
What impact is it having?
Well -- you have to see the book as a popular version of a whole raft of scientific and medical papers that have already been published, or are going through at the same time, some by me and others by colleagues in many different biological disciplines. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the world of evolutionary biology is changing, not by throwing out the old ideas but by building on them and expanding the conceptual framework in exciting new ways.
The great thing for young people entering the biological and medical sciences is that the potential for new research is looking pretty good.
Hi,
As the author of virolution, it's kind of nice to discover a book you wrote being the subject of discussion. I very much liked the humour of some of the contributors. Virolution was a peculiar book to write in many ways. I had to complete it in five months (so it could be published straight away to fit with the 150 years anniversary of first publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species). Unlike my other popular science books, I was encouraged to write much of my own experiences in developing concepts such as viral symbiosis and genomic creativity.
I can believe that it surprised a lot of readers. I get the same initial response whenever I lecture -- and I lecture to a very wide variety of audiences, from molecular geneticists to Cafe Scientifique. But once people grasp the basic ideas, which really are quite straightforward, our eyes open onto a wider vision of how evolution works. In the case of our human evolution, the implications really are strange, even startling -- but also very interesting.
I'd rather interact with members than chunter on about the book. But I suppose I should try to answer a few questions that have cropped up from members already and them promise to field any more questions or comments that people might have.
Does the book set out to replace conventional views on evolutionary biology?
No -- the new knowledge is best seen as the opening of a new chapter that essentially complements the book of knowledge we have already. This applies to biology and it also applies to the important extrapolations to medicine.
What impact is it having?
Well -- you have to see the book as a popular version of a whole raft of scientific and medical papers that have already been published, or are going through at the same time, some by me and others by colleagues in many different biological disciplines. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the world of evolutionary biology is changing, not by throwing out the old ideas but by building on them and expanding the conceptual framework in exciting new ways.
The great thing for young people entering the biological and medical sciences is that the potential for new research is looking pretty good.
Hi Frank, I'm delighted that you've joined and are willing to answer any questions on the subject. What do think of the chances of a halibut farming company being interested in the 'photosynesizing fish' concept, derived from the virus-related DNA of the sea-slug? Is it something that is worth the investment of research and development in your opinion? Are there any major obstacles that you can forsee?
Frank Ryan
Registered Member
an excuse for Ur-ranting among others
You might regret the invitation.
I don't know about the fishy story and photosynthesis, but like a whole load of other people, I do worry about climate change and the impact it will have on my children and grandchildren. But - hey! Can I also have a bit of a rant at this stage about the series of impositions that have, like lightning, evolved to what dear old Terry Pratchett has termed an embuggerance? All these rules percolating down on our heads from Brussels, like an acid rain of dragon's piss. These dratted low illumination bulbs we have to use! My study is evolving into a troglodyte's winter den.
Ranting, deep sniff, can become addictive. Okay - I had better stop it or, like my humour-addicted wife, Barbara, I'll start calling people up on the phone for no other purpose than to give two angry old gits the opportunity of sharing extended rants that can go on for hours. But, scientist that I am, let me post a challenging question. I want to engage in the opposite of a rant, but I don't have a word for it. What shall we call it, this very opposite of a rant -- an anti-rant, or pro-rant, or ur-rant -- I don't really fancy the term eulogy? Whatever it is we had all better discover a good term for it fast before the ranters overpower us.
Hey man! This is getting serious. Pass the plonk!
Anyway -- back to the pertinent scientific question -- I like the idea of humankind taking advantage of the free boon of energy from sunlight. But I think we can forget pilchards and focus on the ace solar-powered environmentalists -- the cyanobacteria. So what are they? To quote a sensible colleague: Cyanobacteria are a fascinating and versatile group of bacteria of immense biological importance. Thought to be amongst the first organisms to colonize the earth, these bacteria are the photosynthetic ancestors of chloroplasts in eukaryotes such as plants and algae. In addition they can fix nitrogen, survive in very hostile environments (e.g. down to -60°C), are symbiotic, have circadian rhythms, exhibit gliding mobility, and can differentiate into specialized cell types called heterocysts. This makes them ideal model systems for studying fundamental processes such as nitrogen fixation and photosynthesis. In addition cyanobacteria produce an array of bioactive compounds, some of which could become novel antimicrobial agents, anti-cancer drugs, UV protectants etc. The amazing versatility of cyanobacteria has attracted huge scientific interest in recent years. Given that 24 genomes sequences have been completed and many more projects are currently underway, the point has been reached where there is an urgent need to summarise and review the current molecular biology, genomics, and evolution of these important organisms.
Amen!
Don't you think these are the little guys who already know how to capture the free energy of sunlight and store it in chemical form. They could do their stuff to reduce carbon dioxide and produce more oxygen, while powering towns and cities with electricity that needs no nuclear power or fossil fuel. Think of the vast arid reaches of the cold northern climates, that could be covered in lakes, and maybe even oceans, of these guys. Has it really been explored? I don't know -- but I doubt it because it couldn't be patented, being natural.
Have another glass -- think about it!
Now there's an ur-rant worth drinking to.
You might regret the invitation.
I don't know about the fishy story and photosynthesis, but like a whole load of other people, I do worry about climate change and the impact it will have on my children and grandchildren. But - hey! Can I also have a bit of a rant at this stage about the series of impositions that have, like lightning, evolved to what dear old Terry Pratchett has termed an embuggerance? All these rules percolating down on our heads from Brussels, like an acid rain of dragon's piss. These dratted low illumination bulbs we have to use! My study is evolving into a troglodyte's winter den.
Ranting, deep sniff, can become addictive. Okay - I had better stop it or, like my humour-addicted wife, Barbara, I'll start calling people up on the phone for no other purpose than to give two angry old gits the opportunity of sharing extended rants that can go on for hours. But, scientist that I am, let me post a challenging question. I want to engage in the opposite of a rant, but I don't have a word for it. What shall we call it, this very opposite of a rant -- an anti-rant, or pro-rant, or ur-rant -- I don't really fancy the term eulogy? Whatever it is we had all better discover a good term for it fast before the ranters overpower us.
Hey man! This is getting serious. Pass the plonk!
Anyway -- back to the pertinent scientific question -- I like the idea of humankind taking advantage of the free boon of energy from sunlight. But I think we can forget pilchards and focus on the ace solar-powered environmentalists -- the cyanobacteria. So what are they? To quote a sensible colleague: Cyanobacteria are a fascinating and versatile group of bacteria of immense biological importance. Thought to be amongst the first organisms to colonize the earth, these bacteria are the photosynthetic ancestors of chloroplasts in eukaryotes such as plants and algae. In addition they can fix nitrogen, survive in very hostile environments (e.g. down to -60°C), are symbiotic, have circadian rhythms, exhibit gliding mobility, and can differentiate into specialized cell types called heterocysts. This makes them ideal model systems for studying fundamental processes such as nitrogen fixation and photosynthesis. In addition cyanobacteria produce an array of bioactive compounds, some of which could become novel antimicrobial agents, anti-cancer drugs, UV protectants etc. The amazing versatility of cyanobacteria has attracted huge scientific interest in recent years. Given that 24 genomes sequences have been completed and many more projects are currently underway, the point has been reached where there is an urgent need to summarise and review the current molecular biology, genomics, and evolution of these important organisms.
Amen!
Don't you think these are the little guys who already know how to capture the free energy of sunlight and store it in chemical form. They could do their stuff to reduce carbon dioxide and produce more oxygen, while powering towns and cities with electricity that needs no nuclear power or fossil fuel. Think of the vast arid reaches of the cold northern climates, that could be covered in lakes, and maybe even oceans, of these guys. Has it really been explored? I don't know -- but I doubt it because it couldn't be patented, being natural.
Have another glass -- think about it!
Now there's an ur-rant worth drinking to.
Thanks for the informative answer Frank. I'll look into the cyanobacteria idea; very interesting.
I have a question regarding the blooming of plankton during an ice age. It is generally assumed that increased plankton will absorb atmospheric CO2 and so add to the cooling trend leading to an ice age. An upwelling of nutrients and iron from the ocean floor is a prime contender, but the mechanism which causes this is unknown. Is it reasonable to suggest that an increase in the gravitational tidal bulge due to the earth's 100,000 year orbit is the likely cause? Ice age insights: samples of air from glacial times add pieces to the ice age puzzle quote:
Frank Ryan
Registered Member
symbiosis and ice ages
The Ice Age Insights URL looks very interesting. I'll have to do some reading and get back to you on my take on it. In the meantime there are two interesting facets that are little explored but might be relevant.
The first -- and it takes on board several questions already posted on the question of the role of viruses in the biosphere -- we now know that viruses are by far the most ubiquitous organisms in the oceans. They clearly parasitise bacteria, and these must include the cyanobacteria (or blue/green algae) as well as other organisms. There is growing evidence that the massive viral presence has ecological significance (I can provide references if people want them). So that's something that would need to be understood as part of the ecology of climate change.
There's another aspect that is more subtle and, I suspect, is little investigated. I've worked in symbiology (the study of symbiosis) for about 14 years, mainly with the theoretical evolutionary implications of viruses in host evolution. But when researching an earlier book, Darwin's Blind Spot (don't blame me for the title -- this was the publisher's brainchild), I interviewed the Gaia scientists amongst others, and concluded that there are major symbiosis cycles in which the shared metabolite (ie metabolic symbioses) is passed from partner to partner through diffuse media, such as air or water. If you think about the photosynthesizers, oxygen is passed on to oxygen-breathers through these media, and carbon dioxide passed back through the same media. A week ago I met a leading Gaia researcher at the Lynn Margulis leaving bash in Oxford -- she's heading home, via Russia, after a 9 or 10 month sabbatical -- and he was unaware of this concept. Yet I think it must be an important component of Gaia thinking. I think it might also be useful in consider the involvement of diffuse symbiosis in the great cycles (oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, etc) in climate change.
People might ask why. The problem is that most of us (including me up to 14 years ago) are far more familiar with neo-Darwinian evolutionary concepts than symbiological ones. And while they don't contradict one another, they are somewhat different, conceptually and mechanistically.
I tried to attach a simple figure to illustrate what I mean, but the upload failed for some reason. Maybe somebody can tell me why.
Anyway, I'll get back when I have properly digested the Ice Age Insights URL and its various connections.
Frank
The Ice Age Insights URL looks very interesting. I'll have to do some reading and get back to you on my take on it. In the meantime there are two interesting facets that are little explored but might be relevant.
The first -- and it takes on board several questions already posted on the question of the role of viruses in the biosphere -- we now know that viruses are by far the most ubiquitous organisms in the oceans. They clearly parasitise bacteria, and these must include the cyanobacteria (or blue/green algae) as well as other organisms. There is growing evidence that the massive viral presence has ecological significance (I can provide references if people want them). So that's something that would need to be understood as part of the ecology of climate change.
There's another aspect that is more subtle and, I suspect, is little investigated. I've worked in symbiology (the study of symbiosis) for about 14 years, mainly with the theoretical evolutionary implications of viruses in host evolution. But when researching an earlier book, Darwin's Blind Spot (don't blame me for the title -- this was the publisher's brainchild), I interviewed the Gaia scientists amongst others, and concluded that there are major symbiosis cycles in which the shared metabolite (ie metabolic symbioses) is passed from partner to partner through diffuse media, such as air or water. If you think about the photosynthesizers, oxygen is passed on to oxygen-breathers through these media, and carbon dioxide passed back through the same media. A week ago I met a leading Gaia researcher at the Lynn Margulis leaving bash in Oxford -- she's heading home, via Russia, after a 9 or 10 month sabbatical -- and he was unaware of this concept. Yet I think it must be an important component of Gaia thinking. I think it might also be useful in consider the involvement of diffuse symbiosis in the great cycles (oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, etc) in climate change.
People might ask why. The problem is that most of us (including me up to 14 years ago) are far more familiar with neo-Darwinian evolutionary concepts than symbiological ones. And while they don't contradict one another, they are somewhat different, conceptually and mechanistically.
I tried to attach a simple figure to illustrate what I mean, but the upload failed for some reason. Maybe somebody can tell me why.
Anyway, I'll get back when I have properly digested the Ice Age Insights URL and its various connections.
Frank
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Attachments are disabled, I think. But then, if it wasn't, you'd still need a minimum of 20 posts.
What you should do is:
- wait until you have a post count if 20,
- upload the file to a website like http://imageshack.us/,
- link to the file in your post, using the tags
If you don't want to wait until you have a post count of 20, you can just post the url. People can then copy and paste it into their browser to see the image.
If the SciForums software gives you crap about posting an url (because you're still under 20 posts) strip off the http part and replace the dots, see what works.
Hope that helps.. and welcome to SciForums
A very interesting first point and the second I need time to chew on and digest (I look forward to the diagram). The common ground with the Gaia scientists sounds fruitful.. btw I just googled some related links to the 'ice age blooms' question: Study Finds That Plankton Blooms Do Not Send Atmospheric Carbon to the Deep Ocean; Weakens Iron Fertilization as Geo-Engineering Approach (11 Sept 2009)
..and this one even fits with the idea of an increase of the natural earth tides which travel across the ocean floor to explain the upwellings and the onset of ice ages: Plankton blooms linked to quakes (2006)
Edit: i can even make a prediction that if the idea of increased natural earth tides is correct, then the associated sudden increase in numbers and size of plankton blooms will be more prolific on the west coasts of the continents. This would be due to the extra reaction force of bouyancy as the sun's (and moon's) tidal bulge travels under the root of the continent from east to west, adding to the tidal mix of nutrients from the sea floor. Just an idea. This could have significant implications for the favoured migration routes of early man.
Last edited:
It should be noted that "green skin" is misleading since you are actually talking about "Symbiosis". A lifeform gains nurishment from cultivating algae, neither would survive in this relationship without the other. They aren't the only lifeform to do it, in fact there is a varient of freshwater shrimp that does the same, in the instance of the freshwater shrimp it's actually down to the body of the shrimp being transparent and allowing light to penetrate through to it's stomach where the algae grows.
The case of the transparent shrimp is in a different catagory to the case of the sea-slug though. I thought that DNA transfer had taken place in the latter. Perhaps Frank could explain?
Frank Ryan
Registered Member
Why viruses kill host
Very interesting stuff! While still thinking about all this, and reading around it, I would like to contribute to the discussion about why viruses sometimes kill their hosts.
It depends on a number of factors and dynamics. Viruses are obligate genetic parasites. They form two different levels of partnership with hosts. In acute viral infections, virus and host will often have a relatively fleeting level of interaction, with selection operating at mainly selfish level in both virus and host, and here there will be the real potential for viruses killing some of the host population. If the dynamics of viral evolution favour rapid spread, this can maximise disease manifestations, eg coughing, sneezing, infectious skin lesions, etc, and the evolutionary drive towards maximising symptoms in host can lead to lethality. Nowhere is this more dangerous to host than in the initial interaction between a highly infectious virus and a virgin host -- a so-called emerging virus infection. This is a situation where the virus might even cause the extinction of the virgin host. But one needs to take a step backwards and really think it through to realise that in such circumstances the virus itself may not be threatened with extinction in a broader sense.
A virus invading a virgin host will probably have hopped species (even families) to do so. In other words it is coming from another host with which it may well have established a long-term partnership.
Let us take the squirrel pox virus that is currently threatening the UK red squirrel with extinction. This virus is a persistent partner with the grey squirrel. In persistent infections -- partnerships where the virus never leaves the host (think myxomatosis, hantaviruses, AIDS, etc) -- the partnership dynamics are very different. Here virus and host must enter into a long-term interaction where selection is operating to a significant degree at partnership (in symbiological parlance, holobiontic) level. The virus has already culled the species genotype of the grey squirrel to one that allows longterm coexistence of virus and host, so it causes no overt disease while yet multiplying freely in the species. The extinction of the red squirrel would not cause the virus itself to become extinct. On the contrary the virus would benefit from the success of its partner, the grey squirrel, taking over the entire ecological niche of the red squirrel. This is one aspect of an evolutionary dynamic of plague viruses I termed "aggressive symbiosis".
In AIDS, even at the very peak of the present pandemic, and where HIV-1 and the human species are interacting mainly at selfish individual (or gene) level, there is the beginnings of such an aggressive symbiotic interaction, with virus and host influencing one another's evolution. This interaction, which is evolutionarily intense, involves the human HLA-B antigens -- coded by our Major Histocompatibility Complex (xMHC), which governs both our immune respones and our determination of self. (see Kiepiela P, et al, 2004. Nature 432: 769-74.). By the time the AIDS pandemic settles, it will have significantly changed the human species gene pool in populations where the epidemic has infected a large proportion of the population. What was formerly a small minority of people within those populations who were genetically more adapted to live with the persistent presence of the virus will survive and multiply, thus greatly increasing their proportion within the host population. In these the virus will be able to reproduce and spread without causing serious disease, an essential step to viral persistence. Moreover, since lentiviruses are capable of invading the germ line of mammals, and primates, HIV-1 could potentially enter into a long-term holobiontic union with the human genome, as have very large numbers of retroviruses with our human and pre-human ancestors.
This would take it to a new and powerful symbiogenetic stage where selection, operating at the holobiontic level of combined vertebrate and viral inheritance within the genome, would open up new evolutionary possibilities in the future.
Very interesting stuff! While still thinking about all this, and reading around it, I would like to contribute to the discussion about why viruses sometimes kill their hosts.
It depends on a number of factors and dynamics. Viruses are obligate genetic parasites. They form two different levels of partnership with hosts. In acute viral infections, virus and host will often have a relatively fleeting level of interaction, with selection operating at mainly selfish level in both virus and host, and here there will be the real potential for viruses killing some of the host population. If the dynamics of viral evolution favour rapid spread, this can maximise disease manifestations, eg coughing, sneezing, infectious skin lesions, etc, and the evolutionary drive towards maximising symptoms in host can lead to lethality. Nowhere is this more dangerous to host than in the initial interaction between a highly infectious virus and a virgin host -- a so-called emerging virus infection. This is a situation where the virus might even cause the extinction of the virgin host. But one needs to take a step backwards and really think it through to realise that in such circumstances the virus itself may not be threatened with extinction in a broader sense.
A virus invading a virgin host will probably have hopped species (even families) to do so. In other words it is coming from another host with which it may well have established a long-term partnership.
Let us take the squirrel pox virus that is currently threatening the UK red squirrel with extinction. This virus is a persistent partner with the grey squirrel. In persistent infections -- partnerships where the virus never leaves the host (think myxomatosis, hantaviruses, AIDS, etc) -- the partnership dynamics are very different. Here virus and host must enter into a long-term interaction where selection is operating to a significant degree at partnership (in symbiological parlance, holobiontic) level. The virus has already culled the species genotype of the grey squirrel to one that allows longterm coexistence of virus and host, so it causes no overt disease while yet multiplying freely in the species. The extinction of the red squirrel would not cause the virus itself to become extinct. On the contrary the virus would benefit from the success of its partner, the grey squirrel, taking over the entire ecological niche of the red squirrel. This is one aspect of an evolutionary dynamic of plague viruses I termed "aggressive symbiosis".
In AIDS, even at the very peak of the present pandemic, and where HIV-1 and the human species are interacting mainly at selfish individual (or gene) level, there is the beginnings of such an aggressive symbiotic interaction, with virus and host influencing one another's evolution. This interaction, which is evolutionarily intense, involves the human HLA-B antigens -- coded by our Major Histocompatibility Complex (xMHC), which governs both our immune respones and our determination of self. (see Kiepiela P, et al, 2004. Nature 432: 769-74.). By the time the AIDS pandemic settles, it will have significantly changed the human species gene pool in populations where the epidemic has infected a large proportion of the population. What was formerly a small minority of people within those populations who were genetically more adapted to live with the persistent presence of the virus will survive and multiply, thus greatly increasing their proportion within the host population. In these the virus will be able to reproduce and spread without causing serious disease, an essential step to viral persistence. Moreover, since lentiviruses are capable of invading the germ line of mammals, and primates, HIV-1 could potentially enter into a long-term holobiontic union with the human genome, as have very large numbers of retroviruses with our human and pre-human ancestors.
This would take it to a new and powerful symbiogenetic stage where selection, operating at the holobiontic level of combined vertebrate and viral inheritance within the genome, would open up new evolutionary possibilities in the future.
This is assuming we use sunlight as a source of energy. It could be just as helpful to use specialized lightbulbs as a means of efficiently converting electricity to nutrition.
Nice one. I hadn't thought of that.
We could re-fuel at night on specialised sunbeds! It wouldn't even have to be sunny outside.
Nice one. I hadn't thought of that.
We could re-fuel at night on specialised sunbeds! It wouldn't even have to be sunny outside.
that will require astronomical amounts of water...the whole process will be extremely inefficient for moving organisms like us.