This morning driving was a pretty moody dark cloudy day (by the way - the colors of the cars are becoming more like the colors of refrigerators, gray, silver, whites, given that they have the higher resale value, thus driving a recursive share growth increase among car colors), and the blue sky was hidden by dark clouds, no green around in 101, no yellow sun, my whole view was rather gray-ish and that made me sad.
That took me down the path of trying to understand why blue. We know why the sky is blue, but what I was interested is why we can see blue? Is it because we want to be able to see better the sky? That seems illogical. For that matter why do we see green or yellow or red. Are they dominant frequencies and thats how the eye evolved its frequence sensing to be able to capture the maximum amount of frequency variance available?
I think not.
Here is my simple way to find out why we see the colors that we can see (again following this methodology of assuming no computer internet wikipedia available - just our logic and our memories). Imagine everything is black and white. Imagine we are 10 millions years back in some anthrpoid form (we've heard dogs see colors different - so I am assuming we do not need to go back 100M years to mammal common ancestors).
So we are a chimp like creature that sees everything in black and white. In what way that "sucks"?Clearly we can tell the sky - even if we are hanging by our tail upside down - it is extremely easy to tell in black and white picture. But we can't tell the parts of the tree that are soft and green thus edible from those that are more hard and brown. That is a massive advantage when trying to pick the soft edible parts of a plant. Ok that explains green. We see green because green is the leaf color (ie its the favorite color for clorophyle (why that is so is another question))
How about red. Why would we see red? Red seems a not very natural color. It is there in some fruits but we can make the case that the fruits like red apples and berries learned that the eye can see red and become red to be more easily discovered and eaten. Maybe red - goes further back. Maybe we see red because of our blood. Red liquid on a rock, or on an animal means that there is an injured mammal. It could mean food, it could alert to an injury. So we see red because it is the blood color (ie which happens to be red because of the red cells which happen to be red because of the iron in them?))
How about blue, our first question? I had a harder time with that. The best answer I could come up was that due to our possibly aquatic past, being able to tell water that is clean from water that is not is important - and clean water has a fine blue tint (even in a lake/river). So we see blue because of the water not the sky.
1. Red and green are very similar frequencies of light.
ReplyDelete2. The most common form of color blindness is red/green.
3. Therefore, maybe we first evolved a red-green color detector, and later on we managed to see the difference between red and green.
I see, you are saying that someone with red-green blindness can just as easily find the greener pastures - so we first developed a green-red detector and added it to our initially mono-chromatic palette. I am now getting curious : as you go back in the evolution graph (not tree) which frequency was first detected (quite probably some fruit insect has by now developed frequency sensing - so I am more interesting in human's own evolution line)...
DeleteOk and a after a bit of wikipedia the answer is found. It seems that we were guess semi-correctly some things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_color_vision
Ability to perceive red[5] and orange hues allows tree-dwelling primates to discern them from green. This is particularly important for primates in the detection of red and orange fruit, as well as nutrient-rich new foliage, in which the red and orange carotenoids have not yet been masked by chlorophyll.
From the article there is an interesting realization: that aquatic life before even getting out of the sea had obtain tetrachromatic vision (which explains much bigger color variety (than in land) in fish and water plants)
The land-life that survived the dinosaur-end "environmental stress" were most probably small burrowing or semi-aquatic mammals which had become di-chromatic (green-red colorblindness) - (odysseas - probably as a result of evolutionary pressure to sacrifice colors for ability to see in the dark). As a result the mammals of today which expanded from these lines are now di-chromatic as opposed to fish and birds that can see many more colors.
A particular line of mammals that lived on trees and was feeding more and more on fruits and roots - the primates developed the need to identify the similarly looking fruits/roots from the chlorophyl covered plants - this caused high environmental pressure and they became tri-chromatic.
(odysseas : of course as soon as they started identifying and feeding on fruits and stuff - they could spend much less of their daily life munching (much higher content of nutrients in fruits/roots so they could be spending more and more time socializing - which made primates develop complex social rules and structures and -)) - more reading shows that it is unclear whether social life of primates dolphins can be used to attribute the origin or the maintainance of the bigger brain trait. Other theories: a) "patchy resources finders" need more brain (carnivor vs herbivor) (chimp vs sth of similar size that eats leaves). b) herbivores weight/size is due to their digestive factory, ie., herbivores have big bodies for their brain not small brain for their body
The best and most interesting article on the subject (subject now being "why primates are smart" )is this ~old paper http://nature.berkeley.edu/miltonlab/pdfs/diet_primate_evolution.pdf
In summary primates are smart because like all mammals they are coming from a line of insect eating burrowing animals. Unlike most animals they start climbing on trees to find tree/pollen insects. Being on trees they couldn't grow big (they would break the branches) and being bigger resuled in reduced flexbility in motion making it impossible/harder to break the animals on the trees into hunting animals (carnivors) and hunted (herbivors). Contrary the species growth was solely due to the ability of surviving on a tree in spit of the evolutionary disadvantage of coming with non-herbivore stomach tract (coming from insect eating burrowers). While some primates did manage to create some of that - most evolved their brain to create stereoscopic/multi-color vision and strong memory and skills to enable social scanning of the forrest for a very problematic and hard to find resource.!!!!
Very interesting....