Early vision was colourful 28 Oct 20074 Oct 2017 UPDATED: To give some of my colleagues at the University of Queensland some link love, it is being reported that they have sequenced the Queensland lungfish (currently under threat by a proposed dam) opsin genes, showing that they see in ultraviolet and visible light, as well as having the ability to see in dim and bright light. The paper is now accessible at BMC Evolutionary Biology. The conclusion drawn from this is that early land dwelling vertebrates saw in colour, which is probably true, but not, I think, because the lungfish is a “living fossil that dates back 400 million years”. It is a modern species that is the last example of a group that dates back that long. So it may be that it has derived colour vision. However, if the sequences are similar (homologous) to those in other vertebrates, the most parsimonious explanation is they both get these genes from a common ancestor. It’s also worth noting that our ancestors probably had only two receptors, one of which duplicated to give us green light reception. Humans have a very poor colour spectrum compared to some others – say the mantis shrimp, which has 7 receptors that evenly cover the spectrum from visible to ultraviolet. We, on the other hand have two receptors that haven’t differentiated much from each other: Human vision Mantis shrimp (stomatapod) vision Evolution Species and systematics
Biology Hunting for the Hat Gene 16 Nov 2009 Mark Liberman has a good essay on why we shouldn’t be seeking genes for X here. Read More
Ethics and Moral Philosophy Morality and evolution 2: Moral facts 1 May 201422 May 2014 [Morality and Evolution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7] In a forthcoming paper, “Evolution and Moral Realism”, Kim Sterelny and Ben Fraser, of the Australian National University, have argued that there can be moral facts that evolution by selection tracks. Their argument is that moral reasoning is complex, and relies upon rapid judgements (what Daniel… Read More
Biology Some loose ends – Reductionism and Phylocode 26 Aug 201018 Sep 2017 I’ve been asked in the comments to cover two topics, neither of which I want to discuss at length because they are not easy to cover, and because they aren’t the focus of my rather intense monomania right now. They are: Reductionism and Phylocode. Read More
Jeez, Wilkins. > We, on the other hand have two receptors that haven’t > differentiated much from each other: Green looks COMPLETELY different from red, mate. Get a grip. Jason
Jason, Tell that to a friend of mine who is R-G colorblind. When his wife was really P’d he would show up at work dressed like Ronald McDonald, and have no idea why people stared. fusilier James 2:24
Perhaps our ancestors where nocturnal at some stage, so no need for good colour vision and they lost part of their colour vision. We do have fairly good low light vision. When our predecessors stopped being nocturnal they luckilly evolved some of the colour vision back.
Perhaps our ancestors where nocturnal at some stage, so no need for good colour vision and they lost part of their colour vision. We do have fairly good low light vision. When our predecessors stopped being nocturnal they luckilly evolved some of the colour vision back.
Perhaps our ancestors where nocturnal at some stage, so no need for good colour vision and they lost part of their colour vision. We do have fairly good low light vision. When our predecessors stopped being nocturnal they luckilly evolved some of the colour vision back.
Perhaps our ancestors where nocturnal at some stage, so no need for good colour vision and they lost part of their colour vision. We do have fairly good low light vision. When our predecessors stopped being nocturnal they luckilly evolved some of the colour vision back.
Perhaps our ancestors where nocturnal at some stage, so no need for good colour vision and they lost part of their colour vision. We do have fairly good low light vision. When our predecessors stopped being nocturnal they luckilly evolved some of the colour vision back.