The question I would like to pose, is there any fossil evidence for solar powered animals, in the earth's evolutionary past/present?

 

By solar powered, I mean they would collect energy from the sun, via chlorophyl laden skin, and use that energy input to supplement their primary food requirement. Snakes use the heat of the sun. I was thinking more in terms of photosynthesis skin.

 

I am not claiming this, just pondering the possibilities.

The question I would like to pose, is there any fossil evidence for solar powered animals, in the earth's evolutionary past/present?

 

By solar powered, I mean they would collect energy from the sun, via chlorophyl laden skin, and use that energy input to supplement their primary food requirement. Snakes use the heat of the sun. I was thinking more in terms of photosynthesis skin.

 

I am not claiming this, just pondering the possibilities.

 

Anemones, coral, and some jellyfish get a great deal of, if not all , of their energy from the sun.

Anemones, coral, and some jellyfish get a great deal of, if not all , of their energy from the sun.

 

I don't think that's technically accurate. The coral that require light aren't undergoing photosynthesis themselves, but contain algae that do. They then live off the algae.

 

In fact, I'm pretty sure that if it's undergoing photosynthesis, it's not an "animal," by definition. There are, however, some motile autotrophs, and some organisms that get energy from both photosynthesis and ingesting organic matter, like carniverous plants, and some algaes.

I don't think that's technically accurate. The coral that require light aren't undergoing photosynthesis themselves, but contain algae that do. They then live off the algae.

 

In fact, I'm pretty sure that if it's undergoing photosynthesis, it's not an "animal," by definition. There are, however, some motile autotrophs, and some organisms that get energy from both photosynthesis and ingesting organic matter, like carniverous plants, and some algaes.

 

Actually the relationship between these animals and the algae they contain is quite close, they do not eat the algae, the algae that live in them has very leaky cells walls, in both directions and they provide sugars to the corals and the corals provide nutrients to the algae, neither and live well with out the other. They share resources, then there are nudibrach that do this as well as clams.

If symbiosis doesn't count as doing photosynthesis, then plants can't photosynthesis either, since all the photosynthesis in plants is done by a symbiotic cyano-bacteria which lives in their leaves w/ a leaky cell wall. The definition of animals, btw, depends on descent and not current ecological niche. Just like there are some plants that don't do photosynthesis, there are some animals that do (though the symbiosis in the case of animals is still relatively new and fragile).

By definition, the organisms that do photosyntesis don not belong to the animal kingdom, so what you are asking is impossible.

 

But if you look for an animal powered by sun that would be me : a few days without seing the sun and I lose all my energy

No offence, but where do people get the impression that animals are defined based on physiology instead of evolutionary relationships?

 

The definition of animal is simply that you are descended from the same common ancestor as all other animals. If, since that branching point, you have managed to pick up the ability to photosynthesis, you don't magically stop being an animal.

By solar powered, I mean they would collect energy from the sun, via chlorophyl laden skin, and use that energy input to supplement their primary food requirement. Snakes use the heat of the sun. I was thinking more in terms of photosynthesis skin.

 

Well the reptiles do use solar power to warm themselves, much like us warm-blooded creatures use our own energy. Personally, I use sunlight to generate some of my own chemicals, such as Vitamin D.

I recently heard about a species of worm that ingests and incorporates algal chloroplasts. Very cool and unusual.

 

http://conspiracyfactory.blogspot.com/2007/09/horizontal-transfer-makes-worms.html

It not a worm dude, it's sea slug, a mollusk.

I recently heard about a species of worm that ingests and incorporates algal chloroplasts. Very cool and unusual.

 

http://conspiracyfactory.blogspot.com/2007/09/horizontal-transfer-makes-worms.html

 

Any particular reason you called it a worm?

 

No offence, but where do people get the impression that animals are defined based on physiology instead of evolutionary relationships?

 

The definition of animal is simply that you are descended from the same common ancestor as all other animals. If, since that branching point, you have managed to pick up the ability to photosynthesis, you don't magically stop being an animal.

 

Agreed. I truly think it would be awesome if we could change the developmental biology of species, such as these sea slugs (mollusks) and turn them into Bulbasaurs.

 

Life is an energy intensive process. At the beginning of evolution, the most reliable source of energy would have been the sun. Based on hard data, one can not prove the earth was a food buffet at the beginning. Solar based life, like plants, would have selective advantage and would evolve the fastest.

 

If evolution is based on random, aren't the odds good for animals to appear from plants, since these had the most reliable source of energy and therefore had the greatest number of energy intensive cell divisions for genetic variations? Could there have been transition species, coming from plants, which could go both ways, until plants was able to generate enough reliable food energy, for a parallel pure animal evolution?

 

A plant is typically stationary, while animals have locomotion. A solar animal, would be a compromise; have limited locomotion. It might move slowly, dragging roots on the surface and/or have appendages with self locomotion with stationary roots.

I think that any animal that doesn't live off of the sun to some extent is not of this earth but to answer your question...well, I have no answer but I'm sure if flowers do it it's not unlikely that one such animal existed.