Comment on I just đ them and think they're neat.
Windex007@lemmy.world â¨5⊠â¨hours⊠agoI imagine there is an incredibly short window in which I technically can.
Comment on I just đ them and think they're neat.
Windex007@lemmy.world â¨5⊠â¨hours⊠agoI imagine there is an incredibly short window in which I technically can.
psx_crab@lemmy.zip â¨5⊠â¨hours⊠ago
Canât tell if joking or anti-science, but ok.
Windex007@lemmy.world â¨4⊠â¨hours⊠ago
Digestion begins before you swallow. I expect if I chewed up some salad, opened my mouth and aimed it at the sun, some percentage of what Iâd just chewed on would have access to co2, h2o and 600nm EMR, and synthesize a glucose molecule two.
Since the genesis of this conversation was purely semantic (âwhy is eating a chrolorplast theft if eating anything else isnât?â) I think itâs pretty fair game to point out that yes, technically I also can reap the benefits of photosynthesis in a very limited way.
Not really a point in getting into a semantic argument if youâre just gonna come out swinging about being anti-science.
psx_crab@lemmy.zip â¨2⊠â¨hours⊠ago
To put it simply, that slug basically absorb and keep the chloroplast in their own body and let it continue to photosynthesis, hence stealing the ability of the plant they feed, while in your example we basically digest it whole, leaving none of the chloroplast cell to photosynthesis.
Thatâs a huge difference between this two organism, kinda silly to bring it up as an example, no? And technically, itâs still the salad that does the photosynthesis in your example. You do know whatâs up, so not anti-science but trolling? Sealioning? Idk. But overall silly.