Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, March 24, 2007 | Science : Genetics | print version Print | Comments

Document New clues to why we see red

by Melissa Lee Phillips

Reposted from The Scientist:
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/home/52952/

Mice engineered to express a human photopigment gene show trichromatic vision, a process that may replicate the evolution of primate sensory systems

Researchers have engineered mice to express an additional photoreceptor, a transformation that may mimic the evolution of trichromatic vision in primates, reports this week's Science. In the study, mice that express a human cone pigment sensitive to long-wavelength light can see colors that normal mice cannot.

"What this shows is that animals can develop quite sophisticated discrimination capabilities just by inserting a new class of receptors at the very front end of the visual system," said David Williams of the University of Rochester in New York, who was not involved in the study. "That's really fundamentally important in understanding how sensory systems develop."

Mice normally have two types of cone photoreceptors -- blue- and green-sensitive -- which gives them dichromatic vision. Many primates have trichromatic vision arising from the addition of a third, red-sensitive photopigment. In Old World primates, this third pigment comes from a separate gene on the X chromosome. In New World primates, the third pigment arises from a polymorphism in a single X-linked gene, which means that only females heterozygous at this locus have trichromatic vision.

Some scientists have suggested that adding a new cone pigment might be sufficient to extract new color information, "but there's been no real proof of this," said lead author Gerald Jacobs of the University of California, Santa Barbara. "The real question is: Does [new color vision] emerge immediately or does one have to then redesign the nervous system in some fashion?"

Researchers previously created a knock-in mouse in which some of the coding sequences for the normal medium-wavelength (green) pigment gene were replaced with human long-wavelength (red) cDNA. Breeding produced males and homozygous females possessing either green or red cones plus heterozygous females with a mixture of the two cone types.

To see whether the addition of this photopigment actually changed color vision in the mice, Jacobs and his co-workers trained mice to identify which of three panels was illuminated with a different color than the other two. After thousands of training trials, the researchers found that most heterozygous females could discriminate between colors that were roughly red and green, while mice with only green cones could not.

"This is really a landmark paper in sensory neuroscience," Williams told The Scientist. The results suggest that "all you need is the right sensory input and the brain will take care of the rest by itself."

"Given that the nervous system has kind of a tough job, the fact that you would just change something at the receptors and then get a whole new sense out of it is pretty amazing," said Jay Neitz of the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, who was not involved in the work.

Not all of the heterozygous mice were equally successful at the color discrimination task, however -- two heterozygous mice failed to discriminate between red and green. "It's not entirely clear why some succeed and others don't," Jacobs said, although these two mice had relatively skewed green:red cone ratios due to random X-inactivation in the cone cells. It's possible that this led to their failure to demonstrate trichromacy, Jacobs said. Indeed, mice that succeeded on the color discrimination task had more balanced green:red ratios.

In general, the red/green color vision in mice that can distinguish between each color isn't as good as in humans, Neitz said, probably because humans have much denser arrays of cones and many more retinal ganglion cells to process the color information. "That's part of the explanation for why mice don't do as well as a primate would," Neitz said.

This limitation in the mouse visual system "makes it all the more surprising and interesting that the mouse can actually do this," Williams said.

Melissa Lee Phillips
mail@the-scientist.com

Links within this article

N. Atkinson, "How birds keep secrets in color," The Scientist, April 27, 2005.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22660/

G.H. Jacobs et al., "Emergence of Novel Color Vision in Mice Engineered to Express a Human Cone Photopigment," Science, March 23, 2007.
http://www.sciencemag.org

J.P. Roberts, "Melanopsin lights the way," The Scientist, April 26, 2004.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/14629/

David Williams
http://www.cvs.rochester.edu/williamslab/p_williams.html

D.M. Hunt et al., "Molecular evolution of trichromacy in primates," Vision Research, November 1998.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/9893841

J.D. Mollon et al., "Variations of colour vision in a New World primate can be explained by polymorphism of retinal photopigments," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, September 22, 1984.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/6149558

Gerald Jacobs
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/people/faculty/jacobs/

P.M. Smallwood et al., "Genetically engineered mice with an additional class of cone photoreceptors: implications for the evolution of color vision," PNAS, September 30, 2003.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/14500905

Jay Neitz
http://mcw.edu/cellbio/colorvision/contentpages/introduction.html

Comments 1 - 37 of 37 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #27342 by karlJ on March 24, 2007 at 6:55 am

 avatarVery interesting! An immediate question that occur to me is if the mice then experience the new colour as a new colour never seen before by ordinary mice or if the machinery in the brain that produces the experience just compress the original colour experience and inserts the new colour at the end as a part of what can be experienced by a mouse, that is, the modified mouse experience what normal mice do with regard to colour, but has the ability to discerne more in detail between colours.

Other Comments by karlJ

2. Comment #27358 by DavidMcC on March 24, 2007 at 8:13 am

 avatarKarlJ, isn't this result evidence that mammalian brains actually learn to use their retinal abilities (ie form neuron connections in the visual cortex) after they are born.

Other Comments by DavidMcC

3. Comment #27375 by karlJ on March 24, 2007 at 9:22 am

 avatarYes, of course, I didn't dispute that at all. I only saw a follow up question that I would like to have answered.

For instance people can learn to hear with electronic implants, and recently blind people have learned to see with a crude electronic implant(experimental). I assume that the internal machinery somehow is reprogrammed to make sense of the new input to create the impression of the senses that we all experience.

But my question is related to what we experience. For instance, we see(experience) the colour spectrum from deep read, orange, yellow, green, blue to purple. What I'm asking is: If we got another set of neuronal input, would we still see the same colours, but be able to distinguish them more detailed, or would we experience a completely new colour that no human has never before experienced.

Now, one can argue that, if we or the mice are able to discerne more colours there must be a new sensation never experienced before. I think that would be really neat. Then if that is true, what is the limit of the mind? How much can we expand it with new impressions?

Other Comments by karlJ

4. Comment #27379 by davyB on March 24, 2007 at 9:52 am

KarlJ, I think I understand your question. I am thinking about how it might be tested, but nothing is immediately obvious.

First I have some comments about what you said about the spectrum and purple, because it is central to the question. Purple is not really a spectral color. It is true that some people see a faint band of violet at the far blue end of the rainbow. I don't think anyone knows for sure why that is. Perhaps it is because our new, fancy R cones are slightly bi-modal and respond a little bit to light at those B wavelengths. How about magenta though? Nothing remotely similar to magenta is to be found in the rainbow. To see a vivid purple or magenta, the eyes have to be stimulated with light from both ends of the visible spectrum and not much from the middle (green) section.

It is because of the three types of cones that we can map the hues we see onto a CIRCLE rather than a line like the rainbow colors. The two ends of the rainbow colors are connected by a line of crimson, magenta, and purple, forming a loop or "wheel."

Do the mice see a color wheel, or do they just see a color line better?

I rather doubt that the mice would immediately see the color wheel. More evolution would seem to be needed. But the important thing is that they immediately see better. Evolution does not plan ahead. For that reason, the result of the experiment should have been anticipated. Still, it's way cool.

Other Comments by davyB

5. Comment #27381 by VanYoungman on March 24, 2007 at 10:08 am

 avatarkarlJ:

The mice don't "learn" to hear with the transplant.

With the transplant they experience hearing. Not a subtle difference.

Other Comments by VanYoungman

6. Comment #27386 by karlJ on March 24, 2007 at 10:22 am

 avatarVanYoungman, the mice did not get a hearing aid, they where genetically modified and got new photoreceptors.
What I mentioned as an example was that people with severe impaired hearing can get electronic implants that stimulates the nerves so that they can start experience hearing. At first they experience a lot of incoherent noice, but after a while the mind has reprogrammed itself so they(some at least) experience sounds good enough to play the piano and have a conversation.

Other Comments by karlJ

7. Comment #27387 by DavidMcC on March 24, 2007 at 10:25 am

 avatarKarl, the learning I referred to was by a different part of the brain from the conscious learning that we engage in as older children and adults. It is akin to the "learning" that usually eliminates synaesthesia in babies.

Other Comments by DavidMcC

8. Comment #27389 by davyB on March 24, 2007 at 10:52 am

Because we have three kinds of color receptors, our "color space" is three dimensional. Some brainy person - was Munsell the first? - hit upon a very useful and intuitive scheme that has coordinates called hue, value, and chroma. If we had four kinds of color receptors, our brains could probably learn to discriminate a four dimensional color space. The idea is not as bizarre as it might seem at first. We experience taste based on four or five kinds of sensors: bitter, sweet, sour, salty, and maybe you want to throw "hot" in there.

Downside to a fourth kind of color receptor? The Munsell Book of Color, which currently costs about $550, would balloon from two volumes to over three thousand.

Other Comments by davyB

9. Comment #27395 by karlJ on March 24, 2007 at 11:19 am

 avatardavyB, this is quite interesting, to view our sense of vision from a three dimensional point of view.

But what if it was four dimensional. What would the experience be then, would we see colours that no human have ever seen before or would we just see(feel) another dimension to the colours we already see.

What I'm driving at, put in another way: Is the color wheel fixed, and new neuronal input just slotted into the existing framework or does the addition of different neuronal input create a new experience of the sense of vision? The color yougenta?

Or:

Is the machinery that creates the sensation of color fixed, or does the addition of new sense dimensions automatically add a new experience of the sense, a new color, sound, feeling, or whatever?

The poor mice obviously could do better with their new photoreceptors. So how did they experience that different from unaltered mice?

Did the addition of new sensory input automatically expand the mices model of reality that the brain of the mice produce for the mice?

Other Comments by karlJ

10. Comment #27396 by karlJ on March 24, 2007 at 11:29 am

 avatarYou forgot the taste umami:)

Other Comments by karlJ

11. Comment #27401 by ridelo on March 24, 2007 at 11:46 am

Could this mean that with some genetic tinkering we could learn to see see infrared or ultraviolet?

Other Comments by ridelo

12. Comment #27407 by Katana on March 24, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Will be interesting to see if this research can be used to help people with colour blindness.

Other Comments by Katana

13. Comment #27408 by davyB on March 24, 2007 at 12:34 pm

KarlJ, I cannot pretend to answer your questions about the experience of color. Experience baffles me. Consciousness awes me. I look out my window and see the world, "in living color." I hear the voice of my own mind. I taste food and hear sounds and music. I presume your experiences are similar to mine. Beyond that, I just have to keep quiet.

Other Comments by davyB

14. Comment #27416 by DavidMcC on March 24, 2007 at 1:05 pm

 avatarI wonder if neuroscience is sufficiently advanced to see differences between the way the visual cortex of modified mice works compared with "normal" mice and with primates, that see three primary colours anyway? This might resolve the matter.

Other Comments by DavidMcC

15. Comment #27417 by DavidMcC on March 24, 2007 at 1:11 pm

 avatarRidelo, a likely problem with UV and IR sensors in humans would be absorption in the humours of the eye. Chances are, they will not pass much at those wavelengths. Also, if we did see UV, it would interfere with RGB vision, reducing colour contrast there, because those cones remain sensitive into the UV, to some extent.

Other Comments by DavidMcC

16. Comment #27419 by ridelo on March 24, 2007 at 1:21 pm

DavidMcC, why can bees see in the UV-range? Is it because they have smaller and dryer(?) eyes with less absorption in those wavelengths?

Other Comments by ridelo

17. Comment #27425 by DavidMcC on March 24, 2007 at 1:49 pm

 avatarRidelo, I am sure the small size of insect eyes helps them see UV. Below about 320nm (ie the so-called UV B and UV C), human eyes absorb nearly all of the UV before it reaches the retina. However, as you suggest, the cut-off would be at shorter wavelengths in small eyes (and maybe the fluids would be different in any case, I really don't know).
In fact, at some wavelength >320nm (ie UV A), there could be UV detection in human eyes, because our retinas are vulnerable to UV damage at such wavelengths, at least until "yellowing" occurs (see eg http://www.optometrists.asn.au/eyevision/consumers/uv ) In other words, with our normal eye fluids, UV A vision would progressively fail if we were in the sun too much without sun-glasses!

Other Comments by DavidMcC

18. Comment #27436 by karlJ on March 24, 2007 at 3:07 pm

 avatarI just wrote a long reply to you all but it disappeared in the digital void, so now we will never know what it was.......Sorry

Other Comments by karlJ

19. Comment #27437 by karlJ on March 24, 2007 at 3:13 pm

 avatarridelo, yes I would think so on the basis of the mice experiment. You only need some new receptors in your eyes and some practice time to use them. If you get them, please report back, I'm most interested in the result.

Other Comments by karlJ

20. Comment #27438 by PsyPro on March 24, 2007 at 3:13 pm

 avatarColour vision and our 3-dimensional colour space is not strictly a matter of having three colour sensors, but rather how the input from those sensors is organised into three opponent processes. So, even if someone were found to have a fourth retinal colour sensor (as has been claimed for some people, although I have no idea how solid the evidence is), it would not lead necessarily (or even likely) to a 4-D colour space; nor is it the case for the mice that by adding a third colour sensor, their visual space went from 2D to 3D: it was probably 3D to begin with, as three independent dimensions is all that is needed to capture the important covariances of natural light.

For example, human dichromats (i.e., those whose colour ``blindness'' is the result of lacking one colour receptor---typically the long- or red-wavelength receptor---the same one added to the mice retina) are not actually colour blind in the sense that they fail to see some colours at all; red/green dichromats, for example, still experience reds and greens, they just fail to make all the subtle distinctions trichromats do. As Edwin Land demonstrated in his ``retinex'' experiments, wavelength intensity records from just two wavelengths (of almost any combination) are sufficient to provide for the the full range of colour experiences (if not always their intensities), assuming the display is complex (unstructured) enough. See Wendy Carlos' web-pages on colour vision and colour blindness for some fascinating demonstrations:
<http://www.wendycarlos.com/colorvis/color.html>

Other Comments by PsyPro

21. Comment #27442 by davyB on March 24, 2007 at 4:17 pm

PsyPro, why didn't I think of that? Do you know for a fact that mice retinas have the opponent process stuff built in? But then (thinks I), why wouldn't they?

What I don't understand is how two receptor types could "provide for the full range of color experiences." That just doesn't make sense to me. I'll google for Edwin Land and retinex.

Other Comments by davyB

22. Comment #27487 by karlJ on March 25, 2007 at 1:08 am

 avatarWow! That link is totally fascinating, I will surely need some time to ponder that.

I now also remember that RD with Yan Wong wrote about "The new world monkeys" in the "The ancestor's Tale". We are catarrhine apes with trichromatic vision that during evolution lost it, to be dichromatic, and then regained it back to trichromatic vision. Most vertebrates are tri or more, which I think, suggests that the machinery that generates the experience is able to handle any number of color input. RD says in the book that the only plausible possibility to handle mutations this way (suddenly goes from di to tri) is that the brain learns to differentiate the colors.

Though it still does not explain the experience of color. Are we confined to the color wheel, or can the brain make up new colors if new inputs are created.

Other Comments by karlJ

23. Comment #27489 by DavidMcC on March 25, 2007 at 2:39 am

 avatarPsyPro, is it known how people with the various kinds of colour-blindness respond to the images on the Wendy Carlos site? Do any of them see any colours that they don't normally see when they look at the slides? I imagine that if the blindness arises from the cones, they would, but if it is in the visual cortex, they wouldn't.
Edit: I suppose that even though most colour-blindness is due to lack of a particular cone pigment, the visual cortex might, or might not be structured for trichromacy. Therefore it would be an interesting experiment for colour-blind people to try.

Other Comments by DavidMcC

24. Comment #27494 by karlJ on March 25, 2007 at 3:04 am

 avatarWhile browsing on the subject I found out that there are actually tetrachromat people out there, mainly females.

"..For example when looking at a rainbow, tetrachromat females can segment it into, on average, 10 different colours, whereas their trichromat brothers and sisters can see only seven.."

I find this totally astonishing.

Damn it, I wanna see them colors to!

Other Comments by karlJ

26. Comment #27506 by DavidMcC on March 25, 2007 at 4:27 am

 avatarAccording to this, tetrachromacy can arise in the daughter of a red-green colour-blind woman! An ironic result of the way X-chromosomes work, it seems:
http://www.ryansutherland.com/media/tetrachromats.pdf

BTW, Karl, I couldn't get your aris.ss.uci.edu link to work, unfortunately.

Other Comments by DavidMcC

27. Comment #27558 by TeapotInOrbit on March 25, 2007 at 9:25 am

 avatarI had trouble accessing the original article. I'm not too familiar with mouse visual pathways, but which components were they looking at? Would trichromatic mapping show up within the lateral geniculate nucleus, or did they look for cortical mapping in the primary visual cortex and beyond in dorsal/visual streams?

Oh BTW, I believe 3D mapping doesn't rely on trichomacy. If memory serves, different ganglion cells transmit signals preferentially from different orientations of light; I can't recall if this goes along the M or P cell pathway.

Okay, my brain is starting to hurt now and I think my old neuroscience professors are sensing a disturbance in the force.

Other Comments by TeapotInOrbit

28. Comment #27563 by karlJ on March 25, 2007 at 9:58 am

 avatarWell, the link still works for me when i click on it.
http://www.science-writer.co.uk/award_winners/16-19_years/2004/winner.html
http://aris.ss.uci.edu/cogsci/personnel/kjameson/JHW2001.pdf
Added a new link, popular interpretation.

Other Comments by karlJ

29. Comment #27565 by karlJ on March 25, 2007 at 10:06 am

 avatarDavidMcC, that was a very interesting article.
And I think it is evedent that the tetrachromats can make use of the new color ability, so the brain must be preprogrammed for all eventualities, that is, it handles all input alike and learns what is what during its first active periode.

Other Comments by karlJ

30. Comment #27663 by DavidMcC on March 26, 2007 at 3:32 am

 avatarTeapotInOrbit: "Oh BTW, I believe 3D mapping doesn't rely on trichomacy. If memory serves, different ganglion cells transmit signals preferentially from different orientations of light; ..."
Are you saying that our eyes can potentially sense the state of polarization of light? I thought that was bees!

Other Comments by DavidMcC

31. Comment #27668 by DavidMcC on March 26, 2007 at 4:00 am

 avatarCiaomhe McKenna (From "science writer" awards: "All I need now for four colour vision (tetrachromacy) is a superior brain."
It looks like she was unlucky!
Edit: ...by which I mean she is apparently stuck with the same old trichromatic visual cortex that the rest of us have to manage with! Maybe it was the same with those two transgenic mice that couldn't see red.

Other Comments by DavidMcC

32. Comment #27723 by Steven Mading on March 26, 2007 at 10:43 am

DavyB said: "Purple is not really a spectral color. It is true that some people see a faint band of violet at the far blue end of the rainbow. I don't think anyone knows for sure why that is."

I always thought it was a harmonic affect tickling the red receptor.
The blue end of human vision is about 400nm wavelengths.
The red end is about 700nm

Half of 700 is 350.

So what might be happening is that as the wavelengths get down close to 350, we approach the first-order harmonic (the doubling of frequency) of the frequency the the red receptor is looking for, and so the red receptor registers a false positive because it's starting to get close to "2x red".

And that's why bluer than blue looks violet - the 2x frequency harmonic is generating a signal on the red receptor.

And that's why we can simulate violet by giving our eyes a signal of red and blue on a computer monitor. Even though that's an entirely different input spectrum than the one in nature that produces a violet sensation, it stimulates the receptors in the same way, generating an optical illusion of violet.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

33. Comment #27822 by DavidMcC on March 27, 2007 at 1:23 am

 avatarSteven, do you know of any evidence for this resonance effect causing the violet band in the rainbow? I always thought it was purely down to ratios of absorption-related cone signals.

Other Comments by DavidMcC

34. Comment #107749 by the_ultimate_samurai on January 5, 2008 at 6:37 am

most interesting, to me the idea of a colour ive never seen is fascinating, perhaps slightly because it is so impossible to imagine. how do you imagine a colour you have never seen, what do you call it, how would others percieve it. the visual range of the human eye is about 1 octave, around the same octave of light that filters through our atmosphere, its totaly arbitrary, if i were an alien and on my planet gamma and x rays as well as our visual rays filtered through the atmosphere my eyes (and my cells) would be immune to their harmful effects and able to see them. to me, much of the world would look transluscent, like painted glass, light would reflect in colours no one else could imagine, it would seem normal to me, if i saw you i would think "cant you see that man over there" to which you would say "there is no one there" "look he is right there behind the wall" to which they may check and see it is true (or worse think you mad) but to you it would seem so obvious that there is someone there because you can see him and so madening that no one else can. when you look at something which looks black to someone else and see shades and hues of colour, you discribe them, but to your dismay no one can comprehend.
our mind isnt built to comprehend things so unimaginable, our memories are built on our senses, our imagination is built on our memories, if we cannot percieve it, we cannot imagine it except to imagine it in terms we understand, we atribute IR to what we see in IR cameras or just a shade of red, and we picture UV as a shade of violet, but it is nothing of the sort. and the way it would play with the other 3 colours would be unique.

also, remember how vision as we know of it is defined by the light which filters through the atmosphere, from what i know of evolution (note im not a biologist) i predict some time in the future, a creature (probably a bird) will develop a sensory organ to detect radio waves. first off, they are reletively unique to this time, radio has existed on earth but was rather scarce, second, radio wave indicate the existance of radio towers and perhaps of power lines, thus for migratory birds the ability to fly towards sources of radio makes an evolutionary advantage (since power lines and towers have more area to perch than trees. and less predators)
thus it seems likely that a bird may develop a sense to detect radio (not to mention perhaps the ability for something akin to natural radar though i believe that requires the source to be the person percieving it...so maybe not radar..)
but then again, im still waiting for animals to evolve the knowlege to avoid cars...that may be just as likely eh?i imagine by the time such a mutation occured, radio would be long dead...much like animals by the time the evolved the understanding to avoid cars at one speed, will be hit with faster cars. maybe only the microscopic life can keep up with the evolution rate of technology (like that bacteria that eats nylon)

either way, i believe its possible for a creature to evolve a perception of radio (if not the eys, something akin to radio antenae) for no other reason than its a form of light available in abundance.
but that has little to do with the eye, except to say vision itself is arbitrary, to say 3 is all you need to display all there is to see is an argument from lack of imagination, and its not by definition your fault, its hard to imagine the unimaginable. and 4d vision or vision of different wavelengths, or different colour receptors, these are hard to imagine, it is hard to contemplate everything we ARENT seeing. its hard to miss something you never had. the old man syndrom "in my day, all we had was[...]and we were just fine that way. we didnt need any of this[...]" if you dont have it, you dont miss it. if you were a person in the 17th century you could never imagine needing a computer, everything you could need to [...] was right there.

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

35. Comment #107756 by sent2null on January 5, 2008 at 8:10 am

 avatarthe_ultimate_samurai wrote:

i predict some time in the future, a creature (probably a bird) will develop a sensory organ to detect radio waves. first off, they are relatively unique to this time, radio has existed on earth but was rather scarce, second, radio wave indicate the existence of radio towers and perhaps of power lines, thus for migratory birds the ability to fly towards sources of radio makes an evolutionary advantage (since power lines and towers have more area to perch than trees. and less predators)
thus it seems likely that a bird may develop a sense to detect radio (not to mention perhaps the ability for something akin to natural radar though i believe that requires the source to be the person percieving it...so maybe not radar..)
but then again, im still waiting for animals to evolve the knowlege to avoid cars...that may be just as likely eh?


This question hints at a slight misunderstanding of how evolution works. Things do not evolve because they are needed, they evolve when they are selected by the environment provided the selected individuals of an observed species have the required nascent level of genetic variability in the range of the chosen selection criteria and enough time goes by. In the case of radio wave detection, we must ask to what physiological systems must a mutation or mutations be made to provide for the new sensation? The more mutations and the more radical the mutation that is needed the less likely it is to be selected. There is evidence that some birds can detect magnetic fields and using this sense are able to navigate massive distances on their migrations. It is possible that the use of this capability through individual variation across generations may indirectly serve the purpose you seek but in order to "detect" radio waves the biological organism must through specific selected mutations create what we electrical engineers call filter circuits. Essentially a biological system for selecting a frequency or set of frequencies from the em spectrum for processing from the countless frequencies flying around in near Earth space. A filter consists of two components a capacitor and an inductor and allow the selection through the set up of a resonance about the selected frequency. Tuning can be accomplished by changing the capacitance of the capacitor of the inductance of the inductor. The birds that are said to detect magnetic fields are almost certainly doing so through use of a biological analog to the inductor but what could serve as a capacitor (charge storage) I think it is unlikely to the point of impossibility that such a mutation will arise and that this mutation will benefit the realization of a filter circuit for precisely the frequencies in the radio range of the em spectrum. The combination of biological mutations needed to derive such a mechanism are extremely unlikely to evolve given the slow and chance process of mutation and selection behind it. Remember there is no direction to evolution and to detect radio waves, there would be a lot more direction involved beyond just being able to detect/harness and store magnetic and electric fields, the circuit would have to be designed to select only radio waves and that would be even more improbable from a natural selection perspective.

All that said, it is far more likely that we with our vastly increasing knowledge of genetic manipulation will custom design this capability in organisms long before it ever arises through natural selection.

Other Comments by sent2null

36. Comment #107974 by the_ultimate_samurai on January 5, 2008 at 5:51 pm

well the detection would be much like any form of light, in fact it doesnt need to be a certain frequency because the bird isnt trying to listen to the oldies...just find the source. it would have the advantage with each step of making the bird more capable of finding a telephone wire or radio tower to perch on (as i said these have less predators, and more perch area than trees, that is a selective force alone, birds already do this) the device would only have to detect the EXISTANCE and INTENSITY of radio waves (and would take probably a two antenae array, much like an insect has) in order to navigate towards it.
this device has places it could evolve, the ears come to mind, the eyes perhaps. what device evolves the ability is kinda irrelevant. what is relevant is that there be a selective pressure (in this case predation and being able to plot a course easy for a perch, though i may be assuming too much that finding a perch takes any amount of energy for a bird...
and i did mention that probably by the time evolution was able to occur, radio would no longer be used (we are currently moving away from radio as it is)

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

37. Comment #108188 by sent2null on January 6, 2008 at 8:01 am

 avatar
well the detection would be much like any form of light, in fact it doesnt need to be a certain frequency because the bird isnt trying to listen to the oldies...just find the source. it would have the advantage with each step of making the bird more capable of finding a telephone wire or radio tower to perch on..


Light is composed of frequencies of em energy and it is only through specific receptors in our eyes that are sensitive to those frequencies that we can "detect" or see it. The same goes for other forms of em energy, you stated "radio waves" in your post and as I mentioned selection is necessary to pick out specific radio frequencies. As I mentioned birds already have a rudimentary sense of magnetic fields (which can be detected without requiring frequency selection using inductors) I agree that this known ability (to detect magnetic fields) coupled with enhanced survivability due to selection of perches away from predators as you suggest may select for birds with a more refined sense of magnetic field detection but that is a long way from radio wave detection which in engineering terms has a specific connotation (frequency selection) and that is what I was addressing in the original post.

Regards,

Other Comments by sent2null
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE