My point is that human eyes cannot distinguish between a true orange - the colour of a Sodium street lamp - and a blend of red and green.
We call both orange, even when one of them isn't. In the same way we call an orange with slightly reduced saturation and greatly decreased lightness brown.
Human eyes are really bad. We can't see polarisation at all.
Andy
Of course that's true, but it's rather different to say orange doesn't exist, instead of saying our eyes/brain are fooled into seeing a mixture of red and green as orange.
They do a reasonable job ... is Darwinism working to "fix" our colour issues?
Darwinism doesn't select the fittest, it eliminates the total numpties. Or did until the rise in the Nanny State.
No, because there is no real selective advantage with that.
Sometimes it does.
And does that too.
In reality even before that, plenty of the total numptys bred like flys/rabbits.
If we had blue tigers attacking us from out of the green grass, we might be able distinguish those colours better ... actually I seem to have pretty good colour vision according to that test where you have to drag/drop coloured tiles into sequence (pretty bad myopia though, the tigers would get me that way).
I think we only have three colour vision so we can tell ripe fruit from unripe, or fruit from leaves. Otherwise it makes no difference if something is red or green.
Likely, but that's a separate issue to evolution still happening with humans.
It isnt with color vision.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required