I think you are saying that, there would be better things to evolve first, or that a creature that has both the escape predetor adaptation and photosynthesis would take a too long time to evolve. That could be the case. But photosenthetic skin is still the better option, provided that everything else is the same.
There are niches between a plant and an animal. A plant with a flexible cell membrane could first become decomposer, then scavenger, slowly becoming faster and starting hunting.
I am going to use the magic word. Hibernation.
Is overheating related to photosynthesis? Take two creatures, they aren’t exactly the same but have the same endurence, if one is given photosenthetic skin, would its endurence drop?
No… Those aren’t niches between plant and animals, those are niches that animals would occupy.
It isn’t a magic word, in hibernation they would be extremely vulnerable to predation since they need to be in a place where sunlight reaches and they still would need to get resources to survive and grow, mineral deficencies can kill.
Also, it would still be unable to compete with plants.
Why would they have the same endurance to begin with? By your logic all animals on Earth should be specialized for endurance.
Also, yes it’s endurance will drop since photosynthesis uses water and it would then have less water to use to control internal temperature.
Not if you would cover your skin with leaves without trying to get enough surface area for more than 19%. You would still try to increase your profile, but getting all the energy from photosynthesis isn’t the goal.
Anything can compete with similar niches, any side can win, that depends on some stuff, I don’t know what you mean
They can dig for nitrogen. They may only hibernate next to ponds, carry water or make symbiosis with something like mycorrhiza, and yes, getting under the dirt means you can get ambushed.
The reason I didn’t considered ambush is this
Cause the extinction of herbivores=> Ate too many plants, but their population dropped more than you, until none remaining
Cause the extinction of plants=> (not considering herbivores) ate too many plants, the population of plants decresed, but your population didn’t decrese like it should have been (not considering what the plant gets from soil) so you kept eating, until none remaining
If plants and herbivores are both mixotrophs, this no longer happens.
The reason I think these would ideally happen is that mixotrophs can do both of the jobs of plants and herbivores, making both obsolete. A plant can’t prevent predation and herbivore can’t survive without food.
I didn’t think too belgium that
It is about the prescence of light. If there is no light, there is no reason to be a mixotroph. If there is less light, well, somewhere between 100% and 0% of the energy being generated from light, it becomes not worthy to do photosynthesis.
The oriental hornet and the acyrthosiphon pisum are able to get energy from sunlight.
A mushroom is sessile, it is a niche an plant can get (while being mixotroph) without immediately evolving movement. The animal (maybe a mobile mixotroph) can also get it, they both would try to get it. It is also possible that this would take a billion years so it wouldn’t happen.
If the population of herbivores decrease, there isn’t anyone to use the oppurtunity of going after the vulnerable one. Yes, they can’t compete with plants if they have a hunter. I just noticed I am imagining there are 3 species but the mixotrophs can fight among themselves. I am not sure about this one.
Plants may remain always sessile.
Photosynthesis doesn’t have to be always on. The worst case scenerio, they are equal.
A support structure is something my example species didn’t need, because it only has one leaf, and the leaf supports itself, I feel like you’re thinking too close to " earth plant can walk", when you should be thinking about how it would evolve on a different planet from the cell up.
… So your mixotrophs can’t survive on photosynthesis? Do you realize that this completely demolishes all of your other points since they depend on the assumption that mixotrophs don’t need other energy sources?
Meaning of outcompete in English
outcompete
verb [ T ]
UK /ˌaʊt.kəmˈpiːt/ US /ˌaʊt.kəmˈpiːt/
to be more successful than someone or something:
Two commodities have been able to outcompete all other goods.
Societies that do not organize themselves effectively are outcompeted by societies that do.
BIOLOGY specialized
(of a type of plant or animal) to succeed in getting more food, space, etc. than another type of plant or animal:
Shrubs seem to outcompete grass in dry times.
Mink have been wiping out waterfowl and outcompeting the native otter.
This is what they can’t do.
You know what does these things but without the hibernation (and as such capable of growing and reproducing)?
Plants.
Neither can an hibernating mixotroph.
Neither can a mixotroph herbivore.
They also havent made plants and heterotrophic animals go extinct, their existence contradicts you.
Except mushrooms aren’t mixotrophs, and they are capable of maintaining a stable population because they don’t require the energy of an animal to survive and to reproduce they use spores which move using air currents.
What? Have you not heard of the existence of predators? Predators would have a much bigger incentive to hunt mixotrophs if the other herbivore populations decrease.
By the time in which they would evolve the capability of stopping their photosynthesis they would go extinct.
No… It doesn’t matter what shape it has it still needs a structure to keep that shape if it has a large surface area. In your case it uses light gasses (which is ambigous how they get them or even evolved to get them to begin with since initial stages would probably decrease the fitness of the organism), but that still wouldn’t be enough to support it.
nothing that gives you that stops photosynthetic bacteria from inhabiting your outer layer of tissue.
it also eats so eventually it would outcompete animals
and that is why they are mixotrophs and not autotrophs
but as you said it increases the time it takes to starve so yes that is how it works
and the mixotroph would likely have structures like the leaf slug to maximize surface area while minimizing the ability of predators to grab it easily and those structures would make it take longer to overheat
only if they didn’t eat to get minerals(which they have to to be mixotrophic) and have enough surface area to get enough energy from photosynthesis. and even then they could eat worms if they produce enough o2 for the worms to survive as the worms eat debris that is likely too small for the mixotroph to deem it worth the energy. also diatoms exist and would likely become endosymbiotes of aerobic organisms due to them producing oxygen and those organisms would be planktonic. also phytoplankton and zooplankton would not be competed with by macroscopic mixotrophs so the mixotrophs could become filter feeders
and where do you think photosynthesizing autotrophs have to be to live.
horizontal gene transfer happens between bacteria and eukaryotes as well as between those individual groups. normally it happens by the bacterium being engulfed and digested by the eukaryote but it can also happen over multiple generations. the first option however can only happen if the eukaryote does not chop up any foreign nucleic acids.
it is more just evidence that lungs are hard to evolve from something far less efficient than anything else because most insects have niches that require lungs due to them moving.
easy. just get up to eat sometimes, sleep in a safe place, and run away when found by predators. famines don’t mean no food but they do mean little enough food that no normal animal would survive one longer than a year. after enough time there would be no predators to worry about so they could just get up to eat when they are hungry and need minerals and sleep at all other times and eat dead members of their species or occupy a different niche to survive. like eating grass.
and that is a good thing.
there is water in the air. how do you think aloe vera gets water in deserts where it never rains or being on a porch with a roof while never being watered. the mixotroph could simply use the same tactic as aloe. also mitochondria make water through aerobic respiration.
says what evidence. a moving photosynthesizing organism that also eats could easily outcompete and outpredate a plant since they would be occupying the same niche as and eating the plant.
but if it can move it can run from predators
it can if it hibernates like a squirrel
but it can survive a famine far longer on the same amount of food
it actually don’t because it is purely up to chance whether or not a species outcompetes anything
the mixotrophs would consistently outrun the predators unless hunted by endurance hunters which are very rare to evolve
I have already wrote almost everything of what I wrote in this reply, as such you clearly misinterpreted everything on purpose (don’t say it wasn’t on purpose, because it would just result in you insulting yourself).
You also often went the BurgeonBlas way of avoiding to answer things.
Funny how you contradict yourself.
They wouldn’t survive with photosynthesis, photosynthesis would only make them capable of staying MARGINALLY more time without food. Any famine that would kill other herbivore populations would kill them too.
To outcompete animals they would have to be capable of sustaining themselves on photosynthesis. But at that point they don’t need to eat anymore.
Also, even if they were capable of staying a long time without eating (impossible) it would still not outcompete animals since it would eat less food and thus leaving more food for heterotrophs than another heterotroph would.
No, those structure would make it take less time to overheat since they would take a lot of sunlight.
They wouldn’t have enough surface area to sustain themselves using photosyntesis, that is impossible.
Irrelevant and avoiding to answer what I said.
Heterotrophs live there to, yet no photosyntesis.
Completely avoiding what I said, it wouldn’t give you chloroplasts.
Again, avoiding what I said.
We aren’t talking about those replacing all animals, but replacing all other non photosynthetic insects, which didn’t happen in more than 100 million years so it disoproves everything you say.
Eat what? They went in hibernation because there was a famine.
There is no safe place, remember that photosynthesis is a process that requires light, as such they need to stay in a place were there is light.
They are hibernating.
No, the predators would still be there, hunting them.
Irrelevant if it’s good or bad, I was disproving 50gens.
Do you realize that… It wouldn’t work? Taking water from the air would be too slow to replenish while running (no endurance specialized animal does that) and you are forgetting that heterotrophs have mitochondria too, so irrelevant.
All of your points depend on the mixotroph being capable of surviving without eating, as such you just avoided answering.
They can’t outcompete the plant because an animal needs much more energy than a plant, they can’t sustain themselves on photosynthesis (only remain marginally more time without eating, but it’s an irrelevant capability in long timescales) as such when plants start decreasing their population starts decreasing too.
Did you even read what I wrote? (of couse you did, you just are being intellectually dishonest by avoiding what I said) It can’t run from predators if it’s hibernating, it can’t reproduce if it’s hibernating and it can’t grow significally while hibernating.
They don’t hibernate, plus their tactic of staying in their nest wouldn’t work because the mixotroph needs light.
And no, it can’t stash food because we are talking about a famine.
Only marginally, it would make no difference in a famine that is capable of killing large portions of herbivore populations.
No it isn’t “purely up to chance”, if there is an organism more capable of extracting resource from a niche will outcompete the current holder of that niche.
Their existence still contradicts you.
They wouldn’t outrun the predators unless the mixotroph are endurance runners which are very rare to evolve.
Also, you are forgetting that endurance means little if the predators can reach you in a few seconds.
Also completely irrelevant if the mixotroph is hibernating.
how is that contradicting myself. a mixotroph is something that eats organic carbon sources and inorganic ones and processes the inorganic ones into organic carbon molecules
and that marginal amount of time is all it needs to be able survive a famine long enough to eat the organs of anything it would previously not have been able to kill. also a mixotroph would likely build up fat faster so it would survive longer without food and it would use up said fat slower meaning it takes more time to starve to death.
no. they would only need to be able to survive without food for longer.
yeah i often do that accidentally when i just woke up less than an hour ago
or it would be saying i was still half asleep. which i was.
they would build more fat and be able to keep it for longer so they would survive far longer without food than you think.
it could simply go in the shade and outrun the predator while leading it in circles in the shade where the predator would overheat faster. also sweating exists for a reason.
funny how you say that when in you also seem to think they don’t eat biological material. also they would just need wings to do that. specifically ones like the james webb telescope has for it’s camera but full of chloroplasts and made of skin with veins and thin but strong bones. if the organism can produce tantalum hafnuim carbide that is probably the best material for said bones
well could you include what you said in the quote so i can see what i misunderstood or avoided due to being half asleep.
because marine snow. it exists. it has entire ecosystems built around it. and it comes from the surface where there are photosynthesizers.
even if it didn’t it would give you their thylakoids and their RuBisCO which would make your cells be able to produce the innards of the chloroplast and if they got in a vacuole then boom. you got a chloroplast if some DNA from a chloroplast gets in it as well as some ribosomes get in that it starts replicating. basically biologically induced abiogenesis with extra steps
no it’s avoiding what you meant. i addressed exactly what you said down to the letter. i simply did not talk about what you meant because i do not have the ability to know what you were thinking at the exact moment you wrote that.
most insects occupy niches that require lungs due to the size requirements increasing the oxygen requirements beyond what using skin for gas transfer can handle. that is exactly what i said. if anybody you are the one pulling a burgeonblas.
food still exists during a famine. it just is in low supply.
if it is a famine on top of a large rock that no predators can climb onto is a safe place because birds that are looking for food will not be in the area if there is nothing they can eat or not enough for stopping to be worth it.
so do squirrels and they manage to run away when a predator finds their hidinbelgium.
no they wouldn’t it’s a famine, remember, the predators would starve because there isn’t enough food to survive without photosynthesis.
it wouldn’t always be running so it would be a good idea and it would likely go in water and only take water from the air when completely still in a cool environment or when submerged in water
i was actually taking that into account. and based on that fact and that photosynthesis produces oxygen from CO2 it should take less time for a heterotroph to diedrate due to more area contacting the air being required than if it was a mixotroph which produces some of it’s own oxygen and thus does not need as much surface area in it’s lungs and thus has less water needed to comfortably breathe.
i literally provided the definition of a mixotroph according to wikepedia but if you were too lazy to read that then a mixotroph is defined as: an organism which is able to acquire carbon and energy from organic and inorganic sources and use it to grow and reproduce
in the time it would take them to drive plants to extinction they would evolve to have the ability to gain enough energy from photosynthesis to acquire 50%-100% of their energy from photosynthesis since all it would take is modifying skin to have flaps and some support structures like bones that could just be a piece of another bone that is designed to create one splinter that is blunt so it doesn’t pierce the skin but thick enough to not be broken by the skin and is designed to grow so it stretches the skin so it can have the highest surface area possible
i was half asleep and tired of the voice that my brain uses when i read things you write so probably not very much
it can if it hibernates like a squirrel
yes but it is close enough to hibernation that the easiest way to describe it to anyone who does not actually care about the semantics is just calling it hibernation but if you do want to get into the semantics then read this
the nest could literally be on top of a tall rock.
what is your definition of a famine? a natural belgiuming disaster? because that is what how you are explaining a famine so far. also it could literally eat grass since according to 50gens it is an herbivorous mixotroph.
adipocytes exist and are energy storage cells which the mixotroph could use less of their fat storage in the same time with no food as a heterotroph and make more fat to store than a heterotroph based just off of the 19% that humans get with only one side exposed to the sun and any self respecting mixotroph that gained it’s ability to perform photosynthesis any time other than recently would have adaptations to increase that number.
literally everything is purely up to chance but for some things the chances are higher than other things and the chances of an animal that has predators outcompeting it’s predators are about the same as the chances of somebody brute forcing their way into a computer with a 14 word long password with 5 letters per word on average.
like you said, predators exist.
they wouldn’t need to be endurance runners if they can just run one second longer than their predators at the same speed which the adaptations necessary for maximizing energy for photosynthesis give you the ability to do
no predator that is not an ambush predator(like cats) would be able to do that without the mixotroph noticing 90% of the time when it is awake due to the noise doing that makes and if the mixotroph runs at the same speeds as it’s predators then that would make the predator not be able to catch the mixotroph. especially at night when most things that would try to hunt a mixotroph would hunt them.
Because it can’t outcompete animals while being a mixotroph.
No it wouldn’t, because it’s marginal.
Did you know? I adressed this scenario exactly under what you quoted.
You continue to avoid answering what I wrote, the quote was about even if they were capable of surviving longer they still wouldn’t outcompete animals.
Then why aren’t there animals that do this?
In case you didn’t know this, sweating is not unique to mixotrophs.
No, I’m just saying they wouldn’t be able to sustain themselves on photosynthesis alone, which your entire argument is based on. You are the one that thinks that.
Something so big would make them easily catched by predators.
I said that they wouldn’t be able to outcompete plants because of their nature as mixotrophs make it impossible for them to survive without plants to feed on.
You then went on how “they could eat diatoms” which is irrelevant since your point on how they could outcompete plants was that they would feed on them and make them extinct.
Again, you are not understanding what I’m saying. You claim it to be so easy for mixotrophs to emerge and take over yet it never happened.
This is what I wrote in answer to what 50gens wrote, you didn’t address why their descendants didn’t take over all insect niches.
Insects don’t have active respiration. You realize right that the animals we were talking about are insects? If other insect species are capable of taking a niche their descendants would be capable of it too if mixotrophs are as good as you claim them to be.
Exactly, by the time they will need to stop hibernation to search for food they will have decreased energy reserves causing them to die since being active consumes much more energy than when hibernating.
You are basing them surviving on a very specific geological formation that they can climb while a predator can’t? Assuming the existence of these highly specific geological formations (assumption which alone should make you discard your claims if you were to use Occam’s razor) in the time the mixotrophs evolve to climb these formations there would also be predators evolving to do the same in order to hunt the mixotrophs.
The mixotrophs are there (and I already explained how your explanation doesn’t hold).
So you agree that it wouldn’t work.
You are literally avoiding answering what I said, but don’t worry, you can read it again here:
See? Your points depend on the mixotroph not being a true mixotroph.
If you don’t believe me read the following:
Your point depends on your mixotroph not being a mixotroph.
Also impossible since just BEING an organism capable of moving like animals takes much more energy than plants.
If it “hibernates” like a squirrel it would use much more energy.
If there is food then it’s not a famine, so you can’t say “they could eat grass” because then it isn’t a famine.
If there is a famine it would be significantly harder to find food to stash, so they wouldn’t be able to make a stash before hibernating.
Exactly, but unlike your points, the existence of predatos are evidence that mixotrophs would be unable to outcompete animals.
That’s assuming that they run at the sane speed, also, the adaptations for maximizing the energy from photosynthesis (at least the ones you listed) would actually make it harder to run.
I don’t know what you mean here. That hibernation wouldn’t work? A mixotroph can lower its metabolism to 19% (by stopping movement, stopping the heart and switching to diffusion for circulation, i don’t know what would be needed) and become, for all intents and purposes, a plant, but the potential to move still would be there. It can survive without food, by hibernating. It can also evade predation by exiting hibernation, I don’t know if its predetors would be called herbivores or carnivores. Could there be complications to waking up from hibernation? Possibly. But, you know, you sleep, that can be called a small hibernation. And you can wake up if you hear a noise or something. All the mixotroph needs to do is to stay aware of its surroundings.
If the plants are consumed a lot, the populaton of heterotrophs should need to decrease, but mixotrophs can evade that by starting to get a higher percentage of their energy from the sun. Even if they do get caught in their plant phase, they can resist, unlike a plant. Would they run out of energy to resist? Up until this point they were mostly heterotrophs, so they have the same amount of energy of the heterotrophs have, so not in a worse position than the attackers. Theoretically, no pure heterotroph should remain outside of dark patches, but there may always be non moving a hundred meters tall rainforests.
But they could be. Former plants can move into that niche with or without losing photosynthesis.
If population of herbivores decrease so would the predetors.
Cactuses do cam photosynthesis, which means they close their stoma and photosynthesise only with the carbondioxide they collected during the night. Things would be different if sweating evolves. A heterotroph would sweat less, if photosynthesis generates heat, or has more surface area under the sun. But did sweating evolve before humans? What does fur have to do with sweating, and photosynthesis? According to quora, some animals with fur do sweat*, but photosynthesis doesn’t generate heat*. Maybe mixotrophs should evolve to reduce their surface area when running.
Well. It looks like a lot of talk has happened. I don’t know if I should try to engage with all of it.
There would be potential for movement, yes, but in order to move they would first have to awake from hibernation which would take time.
Unlike sleeping, the hiber nation you talk about is literally stopping metabolic processes and complete stopping of hearth rate which takes more time to recover from than just having your brain in a state of lower activity and slightly slower hearth rate.
Well no, since they could still hunt the mixotrophs, even assuming that the mixotrophs would be capable of waking from hibernation quickly enough to react to a predator it wouldnt just mean that the predator has to use the same amount of energy it would use in any other normal hunt.
That is interesting, but if the mixotroph sweates then they would need to have their pores open in order to sweate.
It is true, but sweating is generally more efficent withouth fur. The major problem that mixotrophs would face with preventing overheating would be caused by the surface area they use for photosynthesis.
it can though. it can simply occupy all the niches that animals occupy while getting energy to fix carbon from the sun.
if it has fat storage it isn’t
did you know that a human that gets energy from the sun would survive at least a day longer than a human that can’t off of the same amount of fat?
i didn’t though. i addressed part of what you said and you are acting like i addressed none of it. that is almost worse than what burgeonblas does.
based on your own logic they would only eat marginally less but based on actual speculative biologist logic they would eat the same amount because they would have less pressure to have an efficient digestive system and even if their digestive systems had the exact same efficiency they would still eat the same amount to build up fat if they were in a famine prone environment like small mixotrophic animals would produce.
there are though. they are called humans. i’m pretty sure you are one of them. humans are designed to run fast to get away from predators but to simply jog to catch prey
if it was it wouldn’t exist because no animal that is big enough to need to sweat and has sweat glands is a mixotroph. and the reason is in the quote i but above that. overheating.
my argument is entirely based on the fact that they build fat and photosynthesize and eat. i am also saying that they cant survive on photosynthesis alone unless they have structures specifically to deal with that.
not if they simply made them retractable like literally all wings including the james webbs telescope’s mirrors are.
i never said that. i said diatoms exist. clearly you are the one misinterpreting what i am saying because you have either purposefully misunderstood what i say 12 times out of 30 or you just don’t understand my sentences. if it is the former then stop and if it is the latter then get someone who speaks nuerotypical and nuerodivergent speculative biological english
they don’t need plants to feed on though if they have rocks, wings, other mixotrophs, and animals. also the regular rule of animals not being able to get more biomass than their prey does not apply here because eating is not their only food source. and if you are actually including all forms of mixotrophy then they could eat uranium and hafnium and put it in a sac filled with melanin similar to how radiotrophic fungi do it or eat metals and take the electrons from that like geobacter metallireductens or eat sulfides or even just eat rocks and replace the CO2 they produce through aerobic respiration with silica and excrete glass through their rectums to get rid of it
and that is simply because the ancestors of animals did not have chloroplasts and plants do not have fluid enough cell walls to get the structures required to be a mobile mixotroph
you did not give enough context for me to actually understand what you meant because i am not a telepath and thus cannot understand your thought process.
literally every species larger than an ant: am i a joke to you
do you realize that the majority of visible arthropods do actually have lungs or gills and move their blood through them to get oxygen from the air? the type of lungs they use are called book lungs or book gills.
they could just hide food on them or make and use fat
they are fairly common in almost all famine prone regions.
but that is purely up to chance just like literally every single mutation that has happened on this planet also if that happened thy could just make traps for their predators and use the dirt from them to build the high places
and if the predators can’t find or get to them the predators will become non-metabolizing entities or, dead. also the mixotrophs, if they had wings, could simply eat all the plants and have human like skin and not exhale so their predators asphyxiate. it seems your logic is the one that does not hold up because they could just eat all of the plants and then use more oxygen than they produce until it runs out and simply sleep to reduce oxygen costs and start making and producing equal amounts of oxygen thus asphyxiating the predators if the famine is planetwide.
i agree that it wouldn’t work if the air was hot because that would simply add the heat they just got rid of
no it does not. it depends on some of it’s offshoots to not be true mixotrophs but no part of it depends on the initial mixotroph being a true mixotroph
but that amount would still be far less than if it was up and about.
literally every famine that has happened on earth was just there not being enough food also if there is no food there are no plants which means no oxygen for the predators of the mixotroph which can simply spread it’s wings and get oxygen.
again. grass and literally any other plant. and you can’t say those aren’t there because then the predators have none of their precious oxygen or at least not have enough to support their precious blobs of electrical fat
that is like saying the existence of predators is evidence that no herbivore could become the top of the food chain. and humans are evidence that that is false.
not the wings though. the wings add minimal mass, are retractable like any self respecting pair of wings, and are aerodynamic so if angled a bit up they actually make it easier to run as they remove more weight from your legs the faster you go.
so it means that the predator would have to: A. be nocturnal, B. not be stressed, C. be an ambush predator, and D.be able to survive asphyxiation in this famine the entire planet is apparently experiencing due to the mixotrophs eating all the plants.
they could just make more glucose and oxygen by having wings with photosynthetic skin and sleep instead
but do you know what can fix that? it’s photoreceptors to act like a motion camera connected to the heart that turn the heart back on if movement that is too fast(faster than the moon since apparently this planet they live on has 0 plants) occurs they can wake up once their heart is fully on again. or they could just be in ice and replace their water with anti-freeze so they don’t become crystallized. and in that state they still get light so they can still photosynthesize and in that winter that they simply exist at minimum speed the predators are unable to eat them and thus starve.
according to you there is no food for the mixotrophs so there is also no oxygen because the food the mixotrophs eat is plants. probably every type even given it is a famine. and due to that the predators would simply be dead, make their planet extinct, make multicellular life have to evolve again, or make the current mixotrophs fill the niche of moving thing that eats other living things.
not if the predators were starving like they would in a famine.
they could just not have fur on the areas that sweat to increase it’s efficiency.
it could have the areas that sweat all be in the shade produced by the mixotroph’s torso and wings.
While the extra area seen here isn’t attached to its body, it still can stand up and carry nutrients, and the ant is quite clearly supporting it just fine. And assuming the ant is around 5mm, then its leaf seems to have area of approximately 60mm^2, which as per my earlier post in this thread (post 74) is more than thrice the minimum area needed for an autotrophic ant’s leaf
For another example, look at butterflies: Brephidium exilis is around 10mm long and has a wing area of around 85mm^2. Scaling that down, we find that a half-as-large insect would have a wing area of about 20mm^2, which is just enough for a leaf
You didn’t adress it, I even explained why you didn’t.
You adressed it now (by misinterpreting it) but you didn’t before. Start working on your reading comprehension skills and read the reply as a whole instead of reading it as if it’s written in sections that aren’t related to eachother.
Yes, that’s why I said “even if”.
If this were the case then they wouldn’t outcompete animals.
Except they wouldn’t since they would build up fat faster and use less fat than heterotrophs which means they still need to eat less.
I would prefer if you where to read what I answer to (I quote it for a reason). It is clear that I said “Why aren’t there animals that run in circles under the shade?” and you faking misunderstanding is intellectual dishonesty.
Doesn’t disprove what I said.
You didn’t?
What does this mean then? Filter feeders eat plankton and diatoms are phytoplankton.
By your logic animals would be extinct and also “feeding” on rocks is a form of autotrophy.
This is all irrelevant, and you are also assuming fully autotrophic organisms here. And in case you didn’t know, eating uranium (where do they even get uranium from) to perform radiotrophy is still a form of autotrophy.
You aren’t understanding, you are claiming that it’s EASY for it to happen. Yet it didn’t. During the early stages of macroscopic multicellular life mixotrophs SHOULD have emerged and taken over by your logic yet they never did.
Do you realize that book lungs don’t use active respiration? They let air passively diffuse throught their folds.
Also book lungs are present in arachnids not insects, insects just have a trachea system.
In the context we were discussing it’s impossible for them to do any of these things, we were talking about the scenario in which they had a low supply of food or fat reserves DURING the famine.
I doubt that.
Yes, mutations are up to chance but natural selection isn’t. As such a predator capable of hunting them would emerge.
They can’t eat all the plants tho, because if they did they would die of starvation. You yourself said it, your point is based on them being capable of producing fat reserves faster than heterotrophs, but they can’t do that if there is no food to eat.
Correction: there are no plants that can be eaten.
They couldn’t because, by quoting what you said:
Most of the oxygen that animals breathe on Earth comes from the ocean and not from terrestrial photosynthetisers.
Also, they would have to espirate oxygen if they don’t want to die because of oxygen intoxication.
A famine is a critical shortage of food, if grass is food and there is a famine that means that there is a critical shortage of grass. And as I explained above, most of their oxygen comes from the ocean.
Humans aren’t herbivores, but predatory omnivores which were hypercarnivores not so long ago (in geological timescales).
Which would still take considerable time to do, it isn’t like sleeping at all.
No, I said there is no food. Also, you are the one that claimed mixotrophs would outcompete plants and make them go extinct yet you find it absurd for such a thing to happen? Make up your mind.
Except the mixotroph population would be so high that the predators wouldn’t starve at all.
reading skills mean nothing when sleep deprived or half asleep. also ad hominem.
except they would due to needing more food to sustain themselves and they would likely evolve toeat their predators eventually.
they would still need the phosphorus and nitrogen to produce lipids which means that they would still need to eat more to produce more lipids due to not being able to just pull phosphorus from the atmosphere even if they can fix nitrogen from the atmosphere
well could you start quoting the whole thing so i can actually understand your thought process better? if not i will likely continue not properly understanding you because my brain runs on a different OS than yours even if it does have the same firmware.
i was simply stating why saying that is stupid and unnecessary
nope. in fact i said they would not eat anything small enough to not be worth it. what i did say however was that the things that eat them would integrate them into their body plans to survive the lack of oxygen.
they would specifically eat the zooplankton by filtering by size and even if they didn’t the plankton would quickly recover due to low biomass per organism.
they also eat other mixotrophs and animals by that time.
i am assuming a few full autotroph species because logically that is what would happen with all those empty niches and one thing to fill them all
that is literally what i was saying. do you not have an attention span or something.
my logic is that it simply never happened because the right conditions didn’t happen to the right things at the right time. AKA pure chance. if i made a version of every earth animal that had chloroplasts it it’s skin and planted them into wild versions of those organisms the ones with chloroplasts would take over in all regions with sufficient light.
yeah i know that i just forgot to properly modify what i was saying to be correct.
assuming they are like humans and have experienced several less extreme famines in the past they would start using as little energy as possible while turning as much energy from their food as possible into fat or starch
were we though? and if so then they could simply eat the predators assuming they are humans with endosymbiotic algae in their skin due to the predators having fairly large organs and muscles if they are big enough to not think a human is a threat(especially since guns).
not if the mixotrophs defended themselves by killing and eating the predators. and even if they did it would be a case of small dog + hungry snake = full snake with a few scratches(the small dog is the carnivore and the snake is the mixotroph).
and if there is no food to eat then the carnivores just asphyxiate because the mixotrophs eat plants and likely(at least during times of now or no food) other animals but the mixotrophs survive due to producing their own oxygen and the mixotrophs could simply spread their wings and become temporarily autotrophic by eating rocks or dirt(though eating dirt is technically mixotrophy on it’s own because you are eating both organic and inorganic carbon)
then they can simply pull the most human thing possible and eat the poisonous plants until they are no longer poisonous or produce cellulase to break the cellulose walls of plants into glucose or sucrose so the plants that were previously not worth eating become worth eating by turning the cell walls into energy or C. all of the above
then they could go underwater and eat all of those except the microscopic ones assuming they are like deer or humans and reproduce past where their environment dies because they are most of the biomass.
not if they have a fixed amount of O2/CO2 in their blood and have less iron in their blood.
i also said
that includes aquatic plants if they are near a body of water.
and before that we were purely herbivores. all mammals evolved from a single ancestor that was an herbivore and it had several predators
still far less time than if it wasn’t like that and far lower chances of being eaten as they decrease from 100% if it is a predator to prey also being able to wake you up meaning you can catch some if you wake up before they leave or you can run away by the time a predator gets to you
the thing i think is absurd is that there would still be predators that are not mixotrophic when there are clearly no plants producing it also why did you avoid the parts where i said anything about the predators asphyxiating? cherry picking is one of the lowest effort forms of intellectual dishonesty and it seems you are performing it
if there was even enough oxygen for them sure but otherwise the other mixotrophs would be the only predators.
Not ad hominem since I didn’t use it to disprove you.
You were the one that first stated “also sweating exists” not me, you are the one that wrote something stupid and unnecessary.
Again, read the reply as a whole not in sections, but I guess you did this on purpose. In case you didn’t notice it was all a whole answer to your “I never said they would eat diatoms” in which I presented that you said they would become filter feeders which means they would eat diatoms because filtering to only eat zooplankton would make no sense.
No, you were still claiming that they are mixotrophs, next time say it clearly that they would transition to full autotrophy.
But in the way you are explaining it, mixotrophs not taking over would have a chance so minuscle that it could as well be considered impossible.
Ok… And why didn’t you write what wanted to say in this reply?
“humans with endosymbiotic algae in their skin” is a dumb and terrible assumption to make.
That’s assuming the mixotroph would defend themselves by attacking instead of fleeing. Your analogy also makes no sense.
This is assuming that they are omnivores (which is quite rare), that they are capable of eating any plant (which is even more rare) and that they are also capable of getting sustenance from rocks (bruh) and all at the same time (impossible because of the unspecialized nature of omnivores).
That’s not how things work tho, humans are capable of eating things that would hurt most other animals because they descended from scavengers not too long ago (and such they still have the intestinal adaptations of a scavenger).
Why would they do that? How would they even know of their existance? You are making to sense at this point.
No, it would still take the same amount of time they could just start it when they sense a predator at which point it would be too late even with the mechanism you talked about since it would take minutes to reawake.
Have you forgotten about when I said aquatic photosynthetisers (especially phytoplankton) are what produce the majority of oxygen? There is no cherry picking because I already explained it, explaining it again would be useless.
Also, why did you avoid when I said they would die of oxygen intoxication and thus would have to espirate the oxygen? Cherry picking is one of the lowest effort forms of intellectual dishonesty and it seems you are performing it.
