Evolution is a Fact #26 - Colour Vision

by cofty 26 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • cofty
    cofty

    Each little flower that opens,
    Each little bird that sings,
    He made their glowing colours,
    He made their tiny wings.

    All of us have been moved by the riot of colours in a spring meadow, the majesty of a sunset or the beauty of a bird in breeding plumage. What greater evidence could there be of a loving creator than our colourful world and the human eye that is equipped to appreciate it?

    This is the sort of simplistic argument that convinces a lot of creationists about their beliefs.

    It's time to "unweave the rainbow".

    Light is detected by a proteins called opsins. We have four types of opsin in our eyes. One called rhodopsin is extremely sensitive to light but is no use in determining colour. The other three opsins are very similar to each other but are tuned slightly differently to detect different frequencies of light - approximately red, green and blue.

    In order to distinguish a colour, it is necessary for at least two opsins to be excited. Rather like the way our brain detects depth by comparing the differences in the picture between our eyes, it sees colour by detecting the different response between two or more opsins.

    In having three types of colour receptor, humans, apes and New World monkeys are different from all other mammals who have only two. But before we get too smug about our abilities, consider that we are practically colour-blind compared to most fish, reptiles and birds who have four or more colour opsins.


    The rise - demise - and further rise - of our colour vision is a classic story of evolution.

    Our ancestors of modern mammals went through a period of living quietly and coming out to feed after dark. Those who were foolish enough to go out in daylight mostly became dino-snacks and left no offspring. We saw in #4 of this series that we still have 400 broken genes for olfactory receptors that were vital to our nocturnal ancestors. During this time there was no selective pressure to retain colour vision and mutations left us with just two working colour opsins.

    Following the sudden demise of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago our ancestors began to thrive. Lots of vacant niches were available to be exploited including the opportunity to feed in daylight. But having lost one or more of our opsins how was it possible to replace it?

    It turns out that it really wasn't too difficult.

    In mammals the gene for the opsin that reacts to blue light (SWS opsin) is located on chromosome 7. It is sensitive to light of a wavelength of 430 nm (nanometres) Mammals then have a second gene on the x chromosome that has a maximal absorbance between 510-540 nm.

    Humans and our closest primate cousins have two genes at this location on the x chromosome. They lie head-to-tail as a tandem pair and are 98% identical. They are one of many examples of gene duplication - copying errors.

    The proof that many of our genes arose in this way is found in the identical non-coding DNA that gets duplicated along with the gene.

    These duplication events increase the "information" that is available for natural selection to go work on.

    Small mutations resulting in trivial differences in amino acid sequences have fine-tuned the pair of opsins so that one has a sensitivity to green light at 530 nm (MSW opsin) and the other to red at 560 nm (LSW opsin)

    There are just 15 amino acid differences between the green and red opsins. Experiments have discovered that three of these differences are crucial - at positions 180, 277 and 285. At each of these places a single letter of DNA has been substituted resulting in different amino acids at those locations.

    This also explains why colour-blindness is mostly a male problem. Men don't have a spare x chromosome with a backup copy of MSW and LSW if they are unlucky enough to inherit a faulty one.

    There is so much more that can be said about is fascinating topic but that is probably enough for starters. Next time you wonder at a beautiful array of colours in the natural world remember to thank the series of mutations that restored our trichromatic vision.


    Evolution is a Fact - Index #1-20
    .

    Evolution is a Fact #21 - Footprints in the Sand
    Footprints at Laetoli show our Australopithecus afarensis ancestors were bipedal 3.6 million years ago.

    Evolution is a Fact #22 - The Hillocks of Hiss
    A vestigial feature if the human ear shared by 10% of the population demonstrates our evolutionary history.

    Evolution is a Fact #23 - Faunal Succession
    The consistent sequence of fossils found in the rocks can only be explained by evolution.

    Evolution is a Fact #24 - The Origin of Your Inner Ear
    How the bones that reptiles eat with became the bones that we hear with.

    Evolution is a Fact #25 - Deep Time
    Scottish geologist Andrew Hutton discovered the proof of earth's great antiquity.

  • alecholmesthedetective
    alecholmesthedetective

    Thanks Cofty, for explaining it so clearly and simply. I'm not knowledgeable at all on these topics, but I remember a chapter on one of Dawkins's books on bats and echolocation which fascinated me as well. This thread subject reminded me of that and also of the fact that some birds of prey have amazing eyesight.

    Evolution fits perfectly with a world in which some animals needed to hunt to survive and thus evolved traits that aided them in that and other animals which evolved in ways that helped them better escape their predators. This had always caused me cognitive dissonance when I was in the cult.

    The natural world is full of many interesting animals and understanding how evolution moulds it all is very exciting indeed.

  • Village Idiot
  • cofty
    cofty

    In the Tropics around 50% of plants and trees produce your leaves that are red in colour. These are higher in protein and less tough than older green leaves.

    Detailed studies of colobus monkeys and chimps in Uganda, lemurs in Madagascar and spider monkeys in Costa Rica showed that it is the ability to find these tender leaves that is the main advantage of trichromatic vision in primates. Fruit colour is also an important factor.

    About 8% of Caucasian males have reg/green colour-blindness. A study of 3,153 macaque monkeys discovered only 3 colour-blind individuals - less than 0.1%. Clearly there is still selection pressure maintaining colour-vision in these species.

    Creationists often make the claim that evolution cannot increase the amount of "information" in a genome. The MSW/LSW genes are an excellent example to demonstrate that they are wrong.

  • GodZoo
    GodZoo
    Following the sudden demise of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago our ancestors began to thrive. Lots of vacant niches were available to be exploited including the opportunity to feed in daylight.

    "This is the sort of simplistic argument that convinces a lot of evolutionists about their beliefs."

    It amazes me how people can look at their watch and state with such certainty that this or that happened 65 million years ago give or take a few trillion years..

    People can not even remember their own childhoods accurately yet they want you to believe and base your reality on what they say happened 65 million years ago?

    Let's be honest it all sounds very clever and precise but the truth is no one really has a clue and are just wildly stabbing in the dark.

  • cofty
    cofty

    GodZoo - Would it not be more intelligent to ask how fossils are dated and why paleontologists can be so certain about the accuracy?

    Or do you think you know something that thousands of scientists have overlooked all these decades?

    I will look at dating methods later in the series. I am willing to bet you have no actual interest in knowing the facts.

  • GodZoo
    GodZoo

    Your entire response consists of three insults.. always your defence is to accuse people of ignorance.

    1. Would it not be more intelligent...
    2. Or do you think you know something that thousands of scientists have overlooked all these decades?

    No disrespect but yes actually.. the same way I don't gullibly buy into what thousands of extremely highly educated and equally clever religious nuts have been saying far longer than your scientists I don't easily swallow what a geek in a lab coat and some letters after his name says either despite how many friends he may have.

    Science has made some whopping great errors and also adhere to the 'new light' theory as much as those clowns in the other camp. The 'thousands can't be wrong' concept does not carry much weight either as thousands and even millions very often are wrong.

    3. I am willing to bet you have no actual interest in knowing the facts.

    Such a gamble is extremely presumptuous and ignorant but very telling.

    Maybe that should be rephrased: "I am willing to bet you have no actual interest in simply swallowing my facts".

    Like everyone else I would love to know the facts about everything but you simply stating they are such and labelling everyone as ignorant if they don't accept the views you promote is of really no help.

    You are now on your 'Evolution is a fact No.26' and judging by the paucity of responses I'm guessing your support base either does not exist as much as you like to imagine or people simply don't buy it.

    Cofty your style of preaching is always the same: "Take what I say as fact or be labelled an idiot."

    How's that working out for you?

    'GoodZoo'.. I'm not so good.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Godzoo have you studied the evidence for dating methods or do you prefer wilful ignorance?

    A Nobel prize awaits you if you can show it is wrong.

    Cofty your style of preaching is always the same: "Take what I say as fact or be labelled an idiot."

    I have never called anybody an idiot and I would never want anybody to take anything I say as fact. I hope these brief OPs will encourage some to investigate the evidence.

    Others such as yourself will remain in a state of blissful self-imposed ignorance. Your choice.

    Science is a ruthless arena. Scientists publish findings and many others try very hard to prove them wrong. Dating methods just keep getting more accurate and more certain.

    I don't expect you to break old habits and actually read something factual, but for the benefit of others here is a discussion of radiometric dating written by a christian who wants to educate other christians who have fell for the lies creationists tell about the subject.


    Dr. Wiens has a PhD in Physics, with a minor in Geology. His PhD thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating. He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition. He is presently employed in the Space & Atmospheric Sciences Group at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

    Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

    This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community....

  • alecholmesthedetective
    alecholmesthedetective
    And those who have no argument can only make ad hominem attacks. Congratulations GodZoo.
  • cofty
    cofty

    Godzoo the topic is about the way new "information" is added to the genome and modified through mutation and natural selection to create new functions.

    The specific example I used is trichromatic vision but I could have used many others.

    Dating is totally irrelevant to the topic. Did you not read the OP?

    Number 26 - lots of personal attacks and not one refutation of a single fact.

    Number 27 in this series will expand on this same subject.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit