x
  • Bookmark and ShareShare
  • Earn Points
    What's this?
Bizarre sea slug is half plant, half animal
Scientists discover chlorophyll-producing sea slug that can carry out photosynthesis using genes swiped from plants.

By

Stephanie Rogers
Thu, Jan 14 2010 at 1:58 PM
 186

Photo:

 
It looks like any other sea slug, aside from its bright green hue. But the Elysia chlorotica is far from ordinary: it is both a plant and an animal, according to biologists who have been studying the species for two decades.
 
Not only does E. chlorotica turn sunlight into energy — something only plants can do — it also appears to have swiped this ability from the algae it consumes.
 
Native to the salt marshes of New England and Canada, these sea slugs use contraband chlorophyll-producing genes and cell parts called chloroplasts from algae to carry out photosynthesis, says Sidney Pierce, a biologist at the University of South Florida in Tampa.
 
That genetic material has since been passed down to the next generation, eliminating the need to consume algae for energy.
 
However, the baby slugs can’t carry out photosynthesis until they’ve stolen their own chloroplasts, which they aren’t yet able to produce on their own, from their first and only meal of algae.
 
"We collect them and we keep them in aquaria for months," Pierce told LiveScience. "As long as we shine a light on them for 12 hours a day, they can survive [without food]."
 
Pierce and his colleagues used a radioactive tracer to ensure that the slugs are now producing the chlorophyll themselves and not gathering it from algal contamination in the aquaria.
 
Crustacean biologist Gary Martin of Occidental College in Los Angeles sums it up in one word: “Bizarre”.
 
“Steps in evolution can be more creative than I ever imagined,” said Martin.

You might also like:

Join the conversation

Comments: 186
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
anonymous
James Jan 12 2011 at 5:23 AM
You are a perfect example of why creationists are dangerously insane people who should be contained from the rest of society until they can be cured of their delusions. Your comments are so far off the mark and so absurdly uninformed that they virtually unapproachable for specific rebuttal. - The fact that a specific intermediate link between humans and primates has not been discovered does not mean that one does not exist. With that said, a specific intermediate link was announced in early 2010.
.... More
A quick Google search will uncover it. - Finding an intermediate link between a plant and an animal is not something which needs defence. It is evidence which stands on its own merit. - Using the term "creative" to express fascination at this surprising discovery does not support the fictional notion that a magic man in the sky manufactured everything in the universe. Even if such a magic man existed, from where did the magic man originate? How does his powers come to be? It does not explain anything. Evolution explains a great deal. The bottom line is that all of the available information demonstrates beyond reproach that creationism is an altogether inadequate explanation for any tangible phenomenon. Failure to observe this is a significant intellectual deficiency which borders on outright delusional. It ought to be regarded as such for the sake of protecting the health and development of the rest of humanity.
|
anonymous
Penn Jan 27 2011 at 1:46 PM
I just wanted to add that while there has been no intermidiate link discovered, as you say - as do many creationists that holds this fact against atheists - there has also not been discovered any Gods anywhere. I've discussed with christians about this and their defense is the following: You can't find God because he is in the third heaven (the first heaven being earth, the second space) and isn't made of any material which we humans can understand or comprehend. In other words: Its impossible to
.... More
find God since the third heaven is inaccessable to us. Being impossible to find he/she/it is also impossible to prove existent or not. While christians can settle with this, thinking they are safe forever, it still isn't proof that God exists. Meanwhile scientists keep making progress in finding that missing link, which will, indeed, be evidence of evolution. While religious people come up with excuses for their god's abscence or simply don't want to comment their god's whereabouts, evolutionists will look for proof that will confirm the theory and they will gladly show that proof to the rest of the world so that it might - finely - become a sane place.
|
anonymous
A worried citizen Jan 12 2011 at 1:16 AM

Get your facts straight, angry man.

|
anonymous
don't feed the > Jan 11 2011 at 11:38 PM

Successful troll is successful

|
anonymous
Some guy Jan 11 2011 at 11:39 PM
I mean, sure this is strange, but it actually doesn't violate anything that the theory of Evolution lays out. The reporters and scientists are just sensationalizing it so people who don't understand genetics will be interested. Despite what people might think, the mechanics of the cells of all organisms (with a few small exceptions like the arsenic using life forms) are identical. You think that an animal stealing a plant gene somehow puts a nail in the coffin? Geneticists have been doing this for
.... More
years to test, and verify the theory of evolution. Yeast cells can be given human genes and produce human proteins without much effort. Trading genes is common among bacteria as well. People act like we are so different from other creatures, but in reality, we all share the same basic mechanics. All that is different is the coding, or DNA. You could make the comparison that we are about as different from this sea slug as a computer running Windows is different from one running Linux.
|
anonymous
herp Jan 11 2011 at 11:04 PM

WTF?

|
anonymous
reginald Jan 11 2011 at 11:03 PM

I'm honestly not sure if your comment is real, or just created to incite argument. You usage of "common link" doesn't make any sense. If anything, this type of creature provides more evidence for evolutionary development. You come across as incredibly ignorant, and clearly have no grasp over the concepts of evolution, biology, or anything besides blindly believing a religion that you've been spoon-fed.

Keep praying, Danny, and we'll wait for you to develop critical thinking skills.

|
anonymous
Kris Jan 12 2011 at 1:22 AM

hahaha- in complete agreement. Your comment is fantastic.

|
anonymous
Al Dec 15 2010 at 2:43 PM
I am currently a college student studying Zoology, and all I have to say is that you all are throwing around the word "prove" like it is no big deal. In my courses if I turn in a lab report that says that I "prove" anything I will get an F. Science admits that is fallible, and things change, look at mitosis, and the planets. The only thing you can ever have in Science is support. As for God, I believe in intelligent design because everything I have learned in science so far honestly just points to
.... More
the fact that the basis for evolution is a very detailed system making mistakes that get passed on. I challenge any scientist to talk about evolution without saying a word to add an implication that there is some driving force behind evolution. Mutations cannot think, nor can cells, or single sell organisms, they had no aim to create. I don't know what the word is for it, but it is like anthropomorphism with cycles, with inanimate objects. Processes don't think, beings do. Im not saying that you have to agree with me, continue to be prideful at your own risk, but at the very least make sure that you have looked at every side of things before drawing your conclusion. Oh, and for goodness sakes learn how to spell, this comment section was headache to read. If you can't even voice your opinions in a well written few sentences, I fear you will never be taken seriously.
|
anonymous
Mac Jan 12 2011 at 1:31 AM
But fitness enhancing mistakes! The possibility of fallibility in science only furthers this point: simply because we do not know the complete answer now does not mean we will not ever know the whole answer. The self-correction of science is a positive trait. It constantly refines itself in a positive feedback loop, gaining evermore clout. I admit, there have been many terrible decisions, policies, outcomes based bad science (tainted by corporate influence, culture, religious beliefs, personal
.... More
gain, and just overall incompetence) but there has been far more good decisions/policies based on good science. The self-correction of religion, on the other hand, undermines its basis. Religion claimed to have got it all right a long time ago. As it attempts to play "catch-up" with new scientific breakthroughs and discoveries that pick apart its system of beliefs, it only weakens. It does not grow stronger. Religion's adaption and attempts to adjust to new information shows its ultimate fallibility. I suggest you take some social science courses at your college ;)
|
anonymous
Michael Dec 20 2010 at 6:24 PM
but, you misunderstand the nature of what is happening. Like yourself, I am a college student - a biology major with a chem minor. The process of evolution would be random and meandering, as you seem to suggest, if it were not for selective pressures. It is not random mistakes that get passed down, but mutations that are "most fit" for a given environment. Of course there is a driving force behind evolution, but its not a god - its natural selection. Nothing in biology makes sense outside the
.... More
context of evolution. Without it, biology is simply a collection of facts about the living world. However, in the context of evolution, biology is whole and cohesive. It shows us what an incredible biological family we come from, and how incredibly interconnected we all are. I've given up on gods - I'd rather commune with the living. peace, love, and critical thinking.
|
anonymous
Copernicus Dec 17 2010 at 2:47 PM

"single sell organisms" ? You should probably proofread before knocking others about their spelling...

|
anonymous
Bro Jan 12 2011 at 12:42 AM

Seriously??? Glad you went out of your way to point out the 1 word he spelled wrong. You are clearly a god among men

|
anonymous
meshca Jan 12 2011 at 5:29 PM

Amen! haha

|
anonymous
Chad Dec 15 2010 at 9:29 PM
So I'm a university student studying in biotechnology. Evolutionists sometimes try to push creationists to stop believing in God. Most, simply look at the facts presented to them and come to the conclusion that all living beings on the Earth are connected through DNA. Do some research man we have 14% DNA in common with a common weed. The point to science is disproving theories and yourself until you come to a conclusion that it works in the world. So let me tell you my theory about God without actually
.... More
mentioning a higher being you would hear in the Bible. I believe in the big bang so a huge explosion of pure energy, this initial energy slowly created all of the elements that make up space and after billions of years this energy is now solar systems, planets and lucky for us life on planet Earth. So to me energy is the creator of the world, it surrounds us, it is within every being. If you ask what created energy then you are looking for answers and that is good but to think of a superhuman setting off an insane amount of chemical reactions to end up being everything it is today I just can't do it, but I can't say there is no God since no prove has been shown, but a book written 2000 years ago that contradicts itself page after page is not a good source for backing anything up it's about time people see this, or actually take the time to read the Bible.
|
anonymous
Anon Feb 23 2011 at 2:53 PM
Excellent post Chad but if you look at nature as a whole there is a reason for everything you said. The will for a species to survive. Look at any animal, plant, bacteria, they all mutate and evolve to survive and reproduce. Its embedded in everything, even humans. Think about mothers, there is a chemical released in their brain to stop them from harming their babies. If this chemical wasn't there then the infant mortality rate would be catastrophically high and the race wouldn't survive. How
.... More
about spiders who let their young eat them after they are born, or salmon who swim insane distances to reproduce and then die. The survival of the species is embedded in EVERYTHING. The problem is, we as humans may not always see the reason for changes nature makes and like you said the changes can sometimes turn out to be the incorrect choice. Now I am not trying to bash your theory as it is one of the most well thought out ones in this thread, I am simply saying everything anything does is for the survival of the species. Unfortunately when you bring humans into the equation things get mixed up because our intelligence capability is at the level that it is but like i said, nature makes mistakes.
|
anonymous
Tony. Jan 12 2011 at 1:45 AM

Very well said, and these are my thoughts exactly.
There is a higher-power, but it isn't a conscious entity, it is just a tendency for matter to form, and on occasion, for that matter to sometimes gain mechanical process, which eventually lead to life as we know it (or maybe life as we don't know it elsewhere in the universe..

|
anonymous
Penn Jan 27 2011 at 1:58 PM

To me, this sounds like pantheism. Spinoza and Einstein were supposingly belonging in that theism and I have to say its the most sensible of all theisms there are.

|
anonymous
Sad Dec 14 2010 at 1:39 AM

Why, despite all the evidence, are there some people still dumb enough to believe in a god to create anything ? Why denying science, which is reliable and serious, to the advantage of believing in a god nobody has ever seen or been able to proove its existence ?...

|
anonymous
JohnBurman Jan 02 2011 at 7:13 PM

Nothing is quite so amazing to me as a group of biologists attempting to make authoritative comments on theological considerations. I have a pal he is quite an excellent cook, perhaps we should have him consult on brain surgery? Your suggestion that four thousand years of biblical criticism is incorrect because you have decided that the bible is contradictory is more than just offensive to me, I find it arrogant and asinine a shame that your head should so easily swell youngster!.

|
anonymous
ORLY? Jan 12 2011 at 1:33 AM
Nothing is quite so amazing to me as a group of theologians with no formal training in the sciences attempting to make authoritative comments on scientific considerations. I have a pal he is quite an excellent cook, perhaps we should have him consult on brain surgery? Your suggestion that science, in spite of the fact that it has done more for humanity in the last 200 years than religion did in 2000 years, offends me most deeply! I find it arrogant and asinine a shame that your head should so easily
.... More
swell youngster!
|
anonymous
ORLY? Jan 12 2011 at 1:38 AM

Sorry, I didn't finish my point, but you get the idea. Science is a thousand times more useful than religion. To think otherwise is to be delusional, bordering on the insane.

|
anonymous
who cares Jan 12 2011 at 12:51 AM

Ill be the first to admit that I don't have all if any of the answers but come one people, don't you think that the Bible would have at least been disputed the most when it was first written and appeared? Its like taking a history book from today and saying someone 2000 years from now would clearly be better qualified to determine what actually happened.

|
anonymous
Anon Feb 23 2011 at 3:01 PM

The bible is NOT a history book it is a religious text. With that in mind you are supposed to take religious texts word for word without debate. This is paradoxical because they are constantly being reinterpreted. The bible was written 70 years after Jesus. Explain to me how the authors of a book written 2000 years ago are better qualified on GOD then we are today?

|
anonymous
Silent Jan 16 2011 at 7:06 AM
Until you realise that the bible wasn't written in jesus' lifetime or by anyone who knew him, do you know how many gospels there are? Dozens, what makes the ones in your book the right ones? A man who decided to destroy the rest. Not a god, a man decided that too many stories about your savior would ruin your religion, how do you know he picked the right stories? You don't, he picked the ones that suited his needs best, your entire belief system is based on what a lone man wanted it to be and I am
.... More
going to guess you didn't know any of this, it is easier to believe the spoon fed stories you were raised on, right? And that is the problem, you don't know about the origin of your religion and yet you believe it so much you will make posts as you do online, but to address your point directly, the people of the past were not as critically thinking as modern folks, nor were they as well educated, hell in many instances if you wanted to be educated you had to work for the church, so they would have to believe before they had a chance to know better. Is it any shock that education leads to a disbelief in a higher power, the more time goes on the more we discover, the more unsavoury your religion becomes, try reading up on it some time.
|

ADD YOUR COMMENT

Log in or register to post comments

EDITORS' PICKS

tease weird things

line

tease cellars

line

tease fishing

Advertisement

NEWSLETTER

Mother Nature. Delivered
Advertisement