I have a good idea and no-one cares

I'm really sick of people spitting on my ideas and throwing their pickles at me, no really. The problem is that i have a good idea but no-one seems to care. I thought maybe some people here could give me some feedback. So, at the risk of boring you i proceed.

My idea could change the way we think about evoloution. The idea is that we alter the human skin cells so that they convert sunlight into energy and sugars, or photosythisis to us nerds.

The idea is to take a human embryo in the earliest stages of skin developments. In these early stages there only a few thousand skin cells in the embryo. We work with a handful of these cells. By removing a chromosome from each of these cell nuclei. We may be able to replace this chromosome with a chromosome from a leaf cell. That chromosome might accepted. If it does then hopefully the information in that chromosome will make the cell produce the chlorofilm enzyme, this enzyme is vital in photosynthesis. If this works right then the chlorofilm will form chlorplast pockets in the cell cytoplasm. The skin cells would convert the sunlight into energy and sugars.

My other bit for this is the same exept we change the chromosome while its in the sperm cell and the egg cell, that way there is more chance of it being accepted.

If you have a knowledge of plant biology then you know that plants get proteins and sugars from photosythesis and they get vitimins and minerals from the soil beneath them. This would be the same with us humans. We would not have to eat as much, we could still get our vitimins and minerals with fruit, veg and milk.

Just think for a second. This would make humans evolve. The arrival of photosythesis would mean that we would not such big jaw muscles as we don't need to eat meat anymore. Less muscles means more space for the brain to expand.

I guess i might be wrong in some of it.

Please give me some feedback :smile: .

Yeah.

You theory has many problems...

• Plant DNA and animal DNA weren't exactly supposed to mix
• Our whole mindset includes the idea of eating, if we don't, it's
  possible we could die just because we think we should, or we may go
  insane.</li>
• I don't think you could mix the two and get a living organism out of it, the two organisms are just too unsimilar.
• There's more, but I'm just too lazy to post them.

Note: I'm not puttng you down with this post...

Until Later...

---

Dark_Kilauea
DVS Administration
http://www.dvstudio-production.com/

Thats a cool thought, but the problem is that the chances of it working are about the same as the chances of fitting a camel through the head of a pin.

---

http://maze5.net

i dont think the "leaf" cells will be accepted, but if you want
in-depth discussions on this you should post this on a biogenetics
forum.

---

These words are my diaries screaming out loud

Thats a cool thought, but the problem is that the chances of it
working are about the same as the chances of fitting a camel through
the head of a pin.

It worked for triffids.

I like the idea, Warlock. Unfortunately I have to agree with the others. It's unlikley that one can combine human with botanic DNA. I never even heard of a case when they combined human with ape DNA (correct me if there is one in fact).

I don't even think man needs a bigger head; or more space for the brain. A regular human doesn't use his whole brain capacity at all. So I guess evolutioin will go for higher, more efficient brain usage instead of more space.

---

Never try to be perfect - just try it and make the best out of it

We may be able to replace this chromosome with a chromosome from a leaf cell. That chromosome might accepted.
If it does then hopefully the information in that chromosome will make
the cell produce the chlorofilm enzyme, this enzyme is vital in
photosynthesis. If this works right then the chlorofilm will
form chlorplast pockets in the cell cytoplasm. The skin cells would
convert the sunlight into energy and sugars.

Interesting notion, but I think right here is where this idea doesn't
work out. I'm not a scientist but I'm guessing the chromosome
wouldn't be accepted... and there would be no plant human hybrid.

It probably wouldn't work. BUT! if it did, it would be so kick ass. Too
bad we couldn't enjoy it if it worked. I'm sure most of us are more
evolved humwise then and early embryo just building skin cells.

---

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/8521/windows981dk.jpg

Nickelplate is my dad

Dark_Kilauea said:
You theory has many problems...

• Plant DNA and animal DNA weren't exactly supposed to mix
• Our whole mindset includes the idea of eating, if we don't, it's possible we could die just because we think we should, or we may go insane.
• I don't think you could mix the two and get a living organism out of it, the two organisms are just too unsimilar.
• There's more, but I'm just too lazy to post them.

Note: I'm not puttng you down with this post...

Until Later...

I agree, plant and human DNA intermix is not compatible.

I aslo have more theories, but I have to leave now.

This is simple thermodynamics bud. It is certainly something I've always thought would be cool, but it wouldn't work in practice, even assuming there was no problem with engineering the organism in the first place.

look at it this way: The average solar flux at the earths surface is 500 W/m<SUP>2</SUP> and the average efficiency of photosynthesis is ~4.5%. Your body needs on average 8368 kJ of energy each day (2000 calorie diet). If you were to lay in the sun ALL DAY, and we assume your exposed surface area to be 1 m<SUP>2</SUP>, then your body would receive 43200 kJ of energy, of which you could utilize 1944 kJ. So, by doing nothing except lying naked in the sun all day every day, you might possibly be able to meet 23% of your energy requirements! I must admit that this is a bit more significant than I had expected, but it's still ridiculous. There is a very good reason why animals are not photosynthetic. We simply cannot get enough energy out of the process to function. Leave it to the trees. they have MUCH higher surface area.

Reference: http://patzek.berkeley.edu/E11/Photosynthesis.pdf

Note that after a bit more reading I see that my estimate is likely to be wildly optimistic. Revising it by an order of magnitude seems appropriate, which brings us to 2.3% of you energy requirements being met by photosynthesis.

---

Some people are like slinkys...

They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.

I think there are moral issues with firstly killing babies in thier embryo stage (stupid I know, but some people care) and mixing these dead babies with plants to create wierd skin that someday could be used to create super humans that recharge in sunlight... Crazy, but Hitler probably thought about that one too :razz:

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

Photosythesis produces very little ATP (the main energy molecule in all living things) from the sun light. Humans produce something like 36 ATP for every 1 molecule of glucose. And this is still not enough, as our body has to ferment to make more energy when it runs out of oxygen. ALso ever notice why plants are so small, it becuase they evolved that way becuase of the lack of energy they create., If we depended on photosynthesis we would basicaly evolve into plants.

the whoel energey making proces is very complex. In humans it starts with Glycolysis Which basically turns glucose into pyruvate (aka pyruvic acid) using enzymes. Then comes the small intermedary stage, which turns the pyruvate into A substance called Co-enzyme A. Then the Co-enzyme A enters the mitochondria what is called the krebs cycle (that diagram also show the intermedary stage on top.)

NADH is produced from the krebs cycle and glycolisis and enter the mitochondria as well. NADH loses a proton and electron, The proton, or and postive hydrgen ion, goes to the inter membrane space of the motchodria, while the elctron jumps on the elctron transport chain. The electron travel though all the protein structures, casueing free Hydrogen ions to enter the intermembane space. Then when the elctron get to the end of the train it joins with an oxygen and a proton to creat a molecule of water. This cause a hydrongen imbalance between the innner mitcondira and the intermembrane space casuing hydrongen to be pumped back into the mitochodria insides, though the ATP sythase casuing a net of 36 ATP to be created.

Very complex.

plants are a little less complex pretty much they gain photons (packets of energy in the form of light) from the sun which bumps and electron to a higher orbital, which then shoots an elcetron done a plants electron chain( called the light dependent reactions). This creates a small amount of ATP, and some NADPHH. The NADPHH is used in the light independent reactions and creates glucose for the plants to use, and convert to energy.

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting rs6</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>ALso ever notice why plants are so small, it becuase they evolved that way becuase of the lack of energy they create.</DIV></DIV>

I'm not disputing your augment since you are basically agreeing with me in biological rather than physical terms, but this statement just made me laugh. Plants are small? What about tress, yo!

---

Some people are like slinkys...

They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.

I think he means thin. In comparison we are blobs with a few big branches. Trees are 1 big branch (1 vien and 1 artery) which splits off many times till the leaves, which are only a cell or 2 thick. The size to density ratio is much larger with trees than humans.

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

A few Problems here:

• All our cells would have cell walls. This would cause rigidity in ALL tissues including things like our hearts and lungs, which IMHO need to be soft and pliable, not made of wood. Things like our pupils, skin, eardrums, tongue wouldn't work correctly, leaving us only with smell.
  
  IF anyone evolved without cell walls, thier cells would burst from turgur pressure from the engorged chlorophyll pockets (our skin would ooze all the time and the Photosynthesis would do us no good.) </LI>
• Only the outermost layers of skin cells would get sun and they're mostly dead cells anyhow.
• We would still have to eat meat and CANNIBALISE other plants to get all the nutrients that the human body needs.
• with the added rigidity to our structure, erections would ALWAYS last more than 4 hours, so doctors' phones would be ringin' off the hook! (you know, from that commercial on TV)
• Everyone would be green.

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Tracer, the daily diet being 2,000 Calories would make your energy consumption around 8,368.2 kJ, since, in nutrition when they say "Calorie" they're saying kilocalorie. I don't think that'll make your calculations as "optimistic".

But, that doesn't matter anyway, since your body doesn't need pure energy. It needs specific nutrients.

On a related note though, a friend of mine was telling me about a paper he read, through a news article, I think, about some experiments done in the 60s regarding digestion in relation to lifespan. This scientist used mice, he completely controlled their diet and only fed them the absolute essentials that their bodies needed. Of course changing whatever the nutrient was and tailoring each "meal" specifically for what they needed then and there. Basically, it prolonged their lives and the mice lived for a little over 20 years. They think it was because the body wasn't doing the constant work of digestion. Apparently the scientist tried it on himself as well and said the worst thing was, for the first year he was hungry all the time ... he didn't actually need food, his body had all the nutrients it needed, he was healthy and everything. It's actually very similar to what certain sections of the army do. They give specific rations based on your detail (at least the friend I talked to who was part of this) what eventually happened is they burned off all of what they ate. So, they basically stopped going number 2. There was no waste besides urine (Because you always drink more water then you need to stay hydrated)

I'm done now.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

That's pretty cool!

Taking craps hurt sometimes

I dunno... no more number 2 means no more anal gratification...

...

Someones gonna jump all over that statment I just know it.

Addicted to Morphine said:
I dunno... no more number 2 means no more anal gratification...

...

Someones gonna jump all over that statment I just know it.

You know that's Freud's second stage of psychosexual development in children. You're absolutely right, Addicted to Morphine. Not the response you were expecting from grumpy ol' nickelplate was it?

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

...erections would ALWAYS last more than 4 hours, so doctors' phones would be ringin' off the hook! (you know, from that commercial on TV)...

My bio teacher told our class why thats a bad thing.....ouch.

rs6 said:
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<div class="quotetext">...erections would ALWAYS last more than 4 hours, so doctors' phones would be ringin' off the hook! (you know, from that commercial on TV)...

My bio teacher told our class why thats a bad thing.....ouch.</div></div>

I never really did find out WHY. care to tell? don't spare technical Jargon, I know the names of stuff, corpora cavernosa, corpora spongiosum, all that other s**te, but seriously, WHY?

</div>

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

There is a valve like thing that close when you get aroused to let blood in but not out to an extend giving you an erection. The blood doesn't circulate well, so most of the same blood stays in, and eventually, tissue could starts dieing, and well.....you won't have much left. Thats what he told our class of all guys, don't know if its true though, satchmo may know, he's a doctor.

That sounds about right. All the blood thats in there dosent get enough oxygen and causes necrosis. THEN DRY GANGRENE!!! then they have to amputate!

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Crono said:
Tracer, the daily diet being 2,000 Calories would make your energy consumption around 8,368.2 kJ

<DIV class=quotetitle>? posted by Tracer Bullet</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>
Your body needs on average 8368 kJ of energy each day (2000 calorie diet).

</DIV> :razz:

---

Some people are like slinkys...

They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.

Whoops! I missed the k. I must have jumped to your usage of the lower case 'c'. Sorry :smile:

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

About that blood circulation: I think there still is a slight circulation. If there wasn't your penis would feel numb soon and would tickle after a while or latest when the erection disappears. A buddy of mine told me he got an erection that lastet about a whole day once. Probably not a constant one, but still whicked.

I don't think that low oxygen transport would be the real problem here but damaging the blood vessels. Consider all the small arterys are under pressure - how long do they stand it?

But I have no real expierences with this. So I say, as well, satchmo knows more, probably.

---

Never try to be perfect - just try it and make the best out of it

On a related note though, a friend of mine was telling me
about a paper he read, through a news article, I think, about some
experiments done in the 60s regarding digestion in relation to
lifespan. This scientist used mice, he completely controlled their diet
and only fed them the absolute essentials that their bodies needed. Of
course changing whatever the nutrient was and tailoring each "meal"
specifically for what they needed then and there. Basically, it
prolonged their lives and the mice lived for a little over 20 years.
They think it was because the body wasn't doing the constant work of
digestion. Apparently the scientist tried it on himself as well and
said the worst thing was, for the first year he was hungry all the time
... he didn't actually need food, his body had all the nutrients it
needed, he was healthy and everything. It's actually very similar to
what certain sections of the army do. They give specific rations based
on your detail (at least the friend I talked to who was part of this)
what eventually happened is they burned off all of what they ate. So,
they basically stopped going number 2. There was no waste besides urine
(Because you always drink more water then you need to stay hydrated)

I'm done now.

Wow...

I don't think everyone has a firm grasp of molecular biology here.

A foreign chromosome would never be accepted, even if it's from another mammal. How is mitosis going to occur with an odd chromosome.

But even if someone can introduce a single gene, how do you get that gene expressed? How are you going to control the myriad transcription enzymes in the nucleus? We don't even know how to control the genes we already have, much less a foreign gene.

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

satchmo said:
I don't think everyone has a firm grasp of molecular biology here.

A foreign chromosome would never be accepted, even if it's from another mammal. How is mitosis going to occur with an odd chromosome.

But even if someone can introduce a single gene, how do you get that gene expressed? How are you going to control the myriad transcription enzymes in the nucleus? We don't even know how to control the genes we already have, much less a foreign gene.

we were all just going on the assumption that it was gonna work...

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

Satchmo, if you could put the chromosome into a sperm cell and egg would that work?

placing a foreign chromosome in the sperm or the egg would be just the same as placing it in an embryo, i assume, since you are putting them into cells either way.
i believe that nanotechnology (the manipulation of matter on an atomic scale) would solve most of our unanswered questions including genetics.

---

Bullet Control: $5000 for a bullet.
"I would blow your f**king head off! ...if I could afford it. I'm gonna get another job, start saving some money... then you a dead man!"

You would need to remove a chromosome, since the human body go's with 42 x and y chromosomes. You would probably create a freaky creature if it would work.

---

RUST Gamedesign
pepper design

The strength of the turbulence is directly proportional to the temperature of your coffee.

So, who here is posting in this thread without the slightest clue of what they're saying to try and sound intelligent?

/looks around...

Satchmo, if you could put the chromosome into a sperm cell and egg would that work?

No. It wont work, period.

It's the same reason why you can't have two animals from completely different species procreate. It's also the same thing as your body only accepting certain blood types. (as far as I know, but I don't even remember/know how it all works)

You're talking about taking something that would be less efficient then the body we already have. If you want your body to be ran by pure energy so badly, or more specifically the sun, it'd be more likely that you could take your brain out and place it in machinery that will send and receive electrical signals, which could be solar powered. Which, of course, sounds retarded.

Take biology and you'll at least have an inclination of why you can't do what you're talking about.

Speaking of cells though. I read an article some time ago saying they (yes, them) found a way to regenerate cells, since the process is the same for whatever cell. Basically it stops the cell from replication (just yet) and regenerates it instead. They went through 5 cycles or something like that before they let it split and die. They're thinking that the process of aging is just the number of replications all the cells in your body can do. The really odd thing is though, they reported that when rejuvenating the cells, they were "perfect", or rather, completely healthy as if there were no sign that it wasn't a newly created cell.

I just thought that was cool. Some of the Genome stuff is pretty cool too. They actually used it to cure a woman's eye cancer (it was a tumor around the optic nerve).

Apparently the only problem is that we can't physically go through the entire code, since it's too long. That's probably the only reason why we don't know much yet.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

If I were on here more, I would have jumped on the "That would never work and here's scientifically why" bandwagon. Since I'm late to the party, I'll simply state that genes that work together are rarely confined to a single chromosome. With such an expansive process like photsynthesis, I'd say there are genes crucial to photosynthesis, and balancing its role in the organism itself, all over any given plant's genome. It's kind of like saying "why don't we add the genes to give trees a neural network?"

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting French Toast</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>So, who here is posting in this thread without the slightest clue of what they're saying to try and sound intelligent?

/looks around...
</DIV></DIV>

That is a reasonable point, but this is still one of the most intesting threads we've had in a while. Thanks Warlock :smile:

---

Some people are like slinkys...

They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.

We have many talents at the SnarkPit, and question like this can actually recruit the knowledge of all of us.

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

French Toast said:
So, who here is posting in this thread without the slightest clue of what they're saying to try and sound intelligent?

/looks around...

Not me. I really am intelligent, + i like arguing and naysaying!

---

I tried sniffing coke, but the ice cubes kept getting stuck in my nose.
http://www.dimebowl.com

But if you really studied the fundamentals of
photosynthesis
in plants, you would know that we already have something similar to
chloroplasts in our cells. These organelles are called
mitochondria.

They basically function like chloroplasts, except they are more
versatile (in my opinion). They can turn glucose into ATPs, the
basic currency of energy in our body (kinda like Traveller's
Checks). We don't always need light to survive. All we need
is food. And that's a lot easier to come by, in most
circumstances.

Imagine if you're living in Alaska or Sweden, where sunlight becomes a
precious commodity during the long winter. People would starve to
death if they're solely relying on light to generate energy.

If people play Counter-Strike for too long and forget to venture out
into the daylight, they would literally die (yeah, not unlike that
South Korean dude).

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

satchmo said:
Imagine if you're living in Alaska or Sweden, where sunlight becomes a precious commodity during the long winter. People would starve to death if they're solely relying on light to generate energy.

If people play Counter-Strike for too long and forget to venture out into the daylight, they would literally die (yeah, not unlike that South Korean dude).

And, to beat a dead horse, even if you lived on the equater you'd have to spend 10+ hours per day lying in the sun naked... and you'd still probably starve.

---

Some people are like slinkys...

They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.

This seems to be more of a 'brainfart' than a fully thought out idea,
Warlock, but its cool that you're thinking outside the box. I too have
plans for the advancement of mankind, though they mainly involve
"lasers" and the like. One other thought, wouldn't these wooden people
be really flammible? I don't think I'd last in a world where you could
rob a bank with a cigarette lighter.. :razz:

Also if it were suppose to work, eskimos would be screwed.

Acutally putting peoples brains in machines would be awesome. We could all be giant battle robots. Mechs even! And we could have lazors! And an orgasm button! Yeah!

---

"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"

• My yr11 Economics teacher

wil5on said:
we could have ... an orgasm button! Yeah!

You already do. You just wont like where it is. Well ... morphine might.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Lol... Mechs are unpheasable- you could just blast it with a missile! Now a tiny man sized mech to do storms on buildings... or better yet, a robot controlled by the best gamers in the world!

---

-[Better to be Honest than Kind]-

a robot controlled by the best gamers in the world!

There was some (crap) sci-fi that had an episode something like that...
In the far future, people played games with giant, city destroying
mechs, and there was only 2 people left...yada yada, they got them to
mate...

The loaders in Alien 2 looked pretty fun to drive. (now you all know what to get me for christmas) :razz:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Myrk-</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Lol... Mechs are unpheasable- you could just blast it with a missile! Now a tiny man sized mech to do storms on buildings... or better yet, a robot controlled by the best gamers in the world!</DIV></DIV>

Aside from this practical reason why giant mechs will never happen, there is something more fundamental. The mass of any given organism/machine is proportional to the cube of it's scale. However, it's strength will only increase linearly or at most with the square of it's scale... This is why there are no huge insects or any other large creatures with exoskeletons. Every time the size of a creature/machine goes up by an order of magnitude or so, there must be a new design paradigm. Therefor, a 400 ton machine that walks like a person and has armor like an insect seems rather unlikely.

Oh, and just to be picky... "robot" controlled by gamers is by definition not a robot; It is a remote.

---

Some people are like slinkys...

They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.

Every time the size of a creature/machine goes up by an order of magnitude or so, there must be design paradigm

But that's assuming the machine would be terrestrial. If it can function under water, the force of gravity would be countered by bouyancy. And such a machine could potentially work on the Moon or on Mars, where the gravitational pull is less.

But of course, when it's in water, you have to deal with the increased density, among other factors.

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

satchmo said:
<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quote:</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>Every time the size of a creature/machine goes up by an order of magnitude or so, there must be design paradigm

But that's assuming the machine would be terrestrial. If it can function under water, the force of gravity would be countered by buoyancy. And such a machine could potentially work on the Moon or on Mars, where the gravitational pull is less.

But of course, when it's in water, you have to deal with the increased density, among other factors.</div></div>
Partially true. A good example is that lobsters and crabs are, I believe, the largest creatures on earth with exoskeletons. However, a low gravity (or high bouncy) environment does nothing to modify the mass of a creature, only it's weight. You still have to deal with the full inertia of the machine, so it will be just as difficult to accelerate as it would on earth. If our hypothetical mech were running across the lunar surface, it would have to apply exactly the same amount of force to move forward or to stop as it would on earth, it just wouldn't have to spend as much energy to keep it from hitting the ground. Low gravity would certainly help though. A giant mech on the moon would just end up being ponderously slow because of the immense force it would still take to accelerate.

---

Some people are like slinkys...

They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.