Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,432 Year: 3,689/9,624 Month: 560/974 Week: 173/276 Day: 13/34 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 7 of 265 (494964)
01-20-2009 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Larni
01-20-2009 8:12 AM


Vipers and some pythons actually do see like Predator but they are cold blood so their relatively low body heat will not interfere with the heat sensitive pits on their snouts (not their eyes).
The body temperature of an active Viper is only about 5 degrees less than that of a human. I doubt that would be sufficient to make it practical or not.
I suspect the real answer lies in the nature of the infrared sensing pits. As you noted, snakes don't "see" infrared with their eyes, but with specialised organs. Why is that?
I think there are two likely reasons:
1. Thermoreceptors need a system of cooling; putting such a system into the retina would considerably degrade visual quality.
2. Photoreceptors work via certain pigments that are modified (bleached) by incoming photons. I'd hazard a guess that the lower energy levels of infrared photons aren't high enough for this method to function efficiently.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 01-20-2009 8:12 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Larni, posted 01-20-2009 9:57 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 19 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-20-2009 11:52 AM Dr Jack has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 37 of 265 (495014)
01-20-2009 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by RickCHodgin
01-20-2009 11:52 AM


There is no reason to think that evolution would not have created similar thermoreceptors or adpated photoreceptors in humans. We would not have to look like we do today, and if evolution were truly at work it seems very unlikely that we would look like we do today.
Why would it? The need for thermoreceptors is far less in mammals; we already have advanced thermoregulation. Thermoreceptors in snakes, you see, are used more often for finding warm spots in which to bask than to catch mice, and it is doubtless this use that propelled their earlier evolution.
Edited by Mr Jack, : Whoops! Had written photoreceptors when I meant Thermoreceptors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by RickCHodgin, posted 01-20-2009 11:52 AM RickCHodgin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Larni, posted 01-20-2009 1:59 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 41 by kuresu, posted 01-20-2009 2:08 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 141 of 265 (495377)
01-22-2009 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by kuresu
01-22-2009 7:28 AM


Re: What about the other guys?
Ever wondered why we see in that range?
The answer is that it's a range that is largely unabsorbed by the atmosphere. As you move into the infrared or the ultraviolet, you rapidly start getting into regions of much higher absorbtion. In fact, the IR detection of snakes isn't the "near"-IR but two windows someway distant at frequencies about 6-10 and 20-30 times lower which are also able to travel through the atmosphere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by kuresu, posted 01-22-2009 7:28 AM kuresu has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 154 of 265 (495500)
01-23-2009 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by fallacycop
01-22-2009 4:56 PM


Infrared range pedantry
Infrared is a specific range of electomagnetic radiation (between 750nm and 1000nm as you pointed out)
I think you mean 750nm and 1000m.
Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.
Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by fallacycop, posted 01-22-2009 4:56 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by fallacycop, posted 01-23-2009 10:41 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 165 of 265 (500284)
02-24-2009 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Mulder
02-23-2009 11:46 PM


More details, please?
Infrared is a very wide band of the spectrum; if you mean near infrared then, yeah, you're certainly right but it's not of any great significance - it won't let you track footprints by their heat impression or anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Mulder, posted 02-23-2009 11:46 PM Mulder has not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.4


Message 216 of 265 (501229)
03-05-2009 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Stagamancer
03-05-2009 3:48 AM


Re: Pertaining Pesky Post Abiogenesis Primitives
I believe I've already pointed out that RNA has both the ability to contain genetic information, as well as self-catalyze its replication:
It's generally considered unlikely that the first organisms were RNA (too complicated a molecule). It's more likely that they were self-replicating polypeptide chains (proteins, basically) but your basic point: the first life was a self-replicated molecule with no seperate genetic material stands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Stagamancer, posted 03-05-2009 3:48 AM Stagamancer has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024