This should interest the E U community:
http://www.sciencealert.com/humans-coul ... h-suggests
Article: Humans couldn't see color blue until recently
-
- Posts: 58
- Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:53 pm
-
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:41 pm
Re: Article: Humans couldn't see color blue until recently
"A few years later, a philologist called Lazarus Geiger decided to follow up on this discovery, and analysed ancient Icelandic, Hindu, Chinese, Arabic and Hebrew texts, to find no mention of the word blue. And, when you think about it, why would they need one? Other than the sky, there isn't really much in nature that is inherently a vibrant blue."
I can understand the idea if taken from a lighting perspective and I can readily see how a "Purple Dawn" scenario would color tint the sky, however just because "blue" isn't perceived in one light doesn't prevent it being seen another ("daylight" Vs firelight for example). While I find the Himba tribe data very interesting, it is effectively countered by the MIT study of the Russian groups. Unless they have some kind of wider ranging physical evidence (such as comparative DNA analysis), it's really conjecture.
The statement "Other than the sky, there isn't really much in nature that is inherently a vibrant blue" is a ridiculously superficial and severely flawed conclusion.
A blue sky & blue waters might be dismissible, but not the dozens of species of birds with blue that fly in them... http://www.whatbird.com/browse/objs/All ... /2063/Blue
or the nearly A-Z of fish with various amounts of blue...
Let's not forget the bugs - Bees, Beetles, Butterflies, Caterpillars, Damsel & Dragonflies, Flies, Lacewings, Spiders...
and Flowers...
and Crabs & Crawfish...
and Frogs & Lizards...
LOL!!! Davidoff could even ignore that tiny Octopus flashing it's blue rings in an Australian tidal pool if he wishes, but it's at his peril!
I can understand the idea if taken from a lighting perspective and I can readily see how a "Purple Dawn" scenario would color tint the sky, however just because "blue" isn't perceived in one light doesn't prevent it being seen another ("daylight" Vs firelight for example). While I find the Himba tribe data very interesting, it is effectively countered by the MIT study of the Russian groups. Unless they have some kind of wider ranging physical evidence (such as comparative DNA analysis), it's really conjecture.
The statement "Other than the sky, there isn't really much in nature that is inherently a vibrant blue" is a ridiculously superficial and severely flawed conclusion.
A blue sky & blue waters might be dismissible, but not the dozens of species of birds with blue that fly in them... http://www.whatbird.com/browse/objs/All ... /2063/Blue
or the nearly A-Z of fish with various amounts of blue...
Let's not forget the bugs - Bees, Beetles, Butterflies, Caterpillars, Damsel & Dragonflies, Flies, Lacewings, Spiders...
and Flowers...
and Crabs & Crawfish...
and Frogs & Lizards...
LOL!!! Davidoff could even ignore that tiny Octopus flashing it's blue rings in an Australian tidal pool if he wishes, but it's at his peril!
- Metryq
- Posts: 513
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am
Re: Article: Humans couldn't see color blue until recently
I remember a quarterly SCUBA magazine from many years ago that was always printed on heavy, high quality stock with art magazine printing. The back cover featured a select photo, and one of those photos was a diver holding up one of those octopi. When later informed, "Do you know what you were holding?!" the diver replied, "I just thought it was pretty!"+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know wrote:LOL!!! Davidoff could even ignore that tiny Octopus flashing it's blue rings in an Australian tidal pool if he wishes, but it's at his peril!
-
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 11:41 pm
Re: Article: Humans couldn't see color blue until recently
Yeah a Google image search for "blue ringed octopus bite mark" reveals there are plenty of folks out there willing to take that gamble.Metryq wrote:I remember a quarterly SCUBA magazine from many years ago that was always printed on heavy, high quality stock with art magazine printing. The back cover featured a select photo, and one of those photos was a diver holding up one of those octopi. When later informed, "Do you know what you were holding?!" the diver replied, "I just thought it was pretty!"+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know wrote:LOL!!! Davidoff could even ignore that tiny Octopus flashing it's blue rings in an Australian tidal pool if he wishes, but it's at his peril!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests