bipedalist Posted January 25, 2011 BFF Patron Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) Thanks Gray- I was just irritated at Risky for bothering to post if it was a topic he wasn't interested in. The more I've read about bigfoot the less they seem like humans and great apes to me, other than a superficial resemblance, based on reported behaviors. If they are some kind of remnant primate they very well may have more genetic similarities with those bush babies and gliders, only 7 feet tall and no tail. Now imagine something 7-9 feet tall looking at you with eyes like this: Yep, and imagine a night vision shot of those pupil sizes within those eyesockets! Fascinating page here (ultraviolet apparently may have more to do with it than infrared): http://www.loris-conservation.org/database/wild_survey/Survey.html Edited January 25, 2011 by bipedalist
Guest Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Thanks Matt for coming in and clarifying what you couldn't go into detail about on the show due to time constraints. Yes, about that Rhodopsin, it naturally bleaches out of the rods when exposed to light. I'm not talking about the actual eye pigment. We all have the ability and have experienced this when you first turn out the lights in a totally dark room. It takes a few minutes for your eyes to adjust to where you can see the outlines of furniture because the chemical rhodopsin has to refill those rods, for lack of a better way to describe it. So to me, if BF can see at night, he may not be particularly impaired during the day. It maybe just a matter of the amount of time during sunrise or sunset for his eyes to accommodate for the difference in light. Now whether their night vision is IR or not, I don't know, but it doesn't look like that would be necessary based on what these articles have to say about primate eye structures. The first is an article on two primate species with the ability for both diurnal and nocturnal vision: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090518213952.htm Here is an article on an aye-aye that is able to see color at night which I would imagine would improve night vision: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070904114535.htm
Guest Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 You can't know something without a specimen. I am satisfied by the evidence, including personal, that they are largely nocturnal. They are also relatively closely related and are apes. If you take that as a given, it makes a few things likely. OK....without a specimen we're still at "flip a nickle" regarding BF's lineage. Running with scissors here.....what if their night vision developed along different lines? People with migraines have increased night vision also but it's due to vascular changes. NO i'm not saying BF is a migraineur! LOL! So instead of rod/cone dialog, how about vascular differences? We already know their skulls and bone structure are significantly different than ours. And dragging this sorry theory further what if they aren't nocturnal by choice but by biology? Lousey direct vision=using trees as cover/defense shaking trees=compensating for not being able see exactly where we are few face to faces=using peripheral vision instead to keep us in sight general rock throwing daytime vs/ really accurate at night So why wouldn't different vascular/brain variations play a role in the physical behavior we've already observed?
Guest Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Actually it could. I think the article above that I posted about the diurnal/nocturnal primates had some kind of brain structure that allowed for them to switch back and forth.
Guest Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) Actually it could. I think the article above that I posted about the diurnal/nocturnal primates had some kind of brain structure that allowed for them to switch back and forth. :D Really??? I was expecting for a neurologist to come swooping/ in consultation with an anthropologist take me out behind the woodshed for a lesson in stoopid. I just think BF has it's own biology. Not necessarily like us or great apes. Will re-read the article sssslowly....till I "get" it! edited for spelling Edited January 25, 2011 by grayjay
bipedalist Posted January 25, 2011 BFF Patron Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/05/from_day_to_night_-_a_lesson_in_eye_evolution_with_the_owl_m.php More in-depth follow-up article. Particularly note the part about the owl monkey lacking the fovea. Also: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8963.full.pdf+html And actual dna packing that allows for a lens-like reflecting arrangement: http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience/2009/04/nocturnal_mammals_see_in_dark_by_turning_displaced_dna_into.php Edited January 25, 2011 by bipedalist
BobZenor Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Jodie's link from above ...By comparing the timing of retinal cell proliferation in the two species, the researchers found evidence that an extended period of progenitor cell proliferation in the owl monkey gave rise to an increased number of rod and other associated cells that make its eyes adept at night vision; the eyes also evolved to be large, with bigger light-gathering and light-sensing structures needed for nocturnal sight."The beauty of the evolutionary mechanism we have identified is that it enables the eye to almost toggle back and forth between a nocturnal and a diurnal structure," said neurobiologist Michael Dyer of St. Jude's hospital. "It is an elegant system that gives the eye a lot of flexibility in terms of specialization."... It makes it sound like it is even easier than I thought to increase rods over cones. That sounds like something that could evolve very quickly. It is likely only a single gene to increase the "period of progenitor cell proliferation". I was thinking millions of years needed before I read that. Now I am thinking even only several generations might make a significant difference. GrayJay, I don't know what to think about the vascularization differences in migraine sufferers. Perhaps the brain responds by more neurons or they just fire more easily. It sounds like it is similar to my idea of the brain acting like night vision device by simply amplifying the signal. It really just boils down to perception so you could increase the sensitivity of whatever part of the brain interprets the visual input.
Guest Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) Jodie's link from above It makes it sound like it is even easier than I thought to increase rods over cones. That sounds like something that could evolve very quickly. It is likely only a single gene to increase the "period of progenitor cell proliferation". I was thinking millions of years needed before I read that. Now I am thinking even only several generations might make a significant difference. GrayJay, I don't know what to think about the vascularization differences in migraine sufferers. Perhaps the brain responds by more neurons or they just fire more easily. It sounds like it is similar to my idea of the brain acting like night vision device by simply amplifying the signal. It really just boils down to perception so you could increase the sensitivity of whatever part of the brain interprets the visual input. The vision changes were just a jumping point off into the wild world of alternate biology. BF's vaso-circuitry may well be quite unlike ours resulting in a different way to boost nightvision. In addition to the retinal-gene mutations like the owl monkey. BF skulls appear to be remarkable different than homosapiens, so why wouldn't their brain functionalities equally be? I don't mean thought processes, but the actual physiology. It's not like we've had an actual neanderthal brain for a neurosurgeon to point at and great apes are diurnal. Therefore I'm running with the what if? But the owl monkey theory looks like a winner. Edited January 25, 2011 by grayjay
Guest Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 :D Really??? I was expecting for a neurologist to come swooping/ in consultation with an anthropologist take me out behind the woodshed for a lesson in stoopid. I just think BF has it's own biology. Not necessarily like us or great apes. Will re-read the article sssslowly....till I "get" it! edited for spelling Well if anyone swoops on you for not knowing something shame on them, they didn't know it at one time either. From what I understand from reading the genetic research for color blindness, they can do all the therapy in the world trying to change the ratio of the rods and cones in the eye to fix it, but you still have to have the right neural pathway to receive the new data from the eye, so brain structure does have something to do with it.
Guest Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 So what I'm gathering from all of these articles is that night/day vision, and mammals that have both, all basically arise from the same genetic pattern, it just depends on the environmental pressures as to the timing of what DNA gets turned on when and in what sequence that allows for the variety. So no need for the paranormal or bizarre explanations for bigfoot's night vision abilities.
BobZenor Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) Well if anyone swoops on you for not knowing something shame on them, they didn't know it at one time either. From what I understand from reading the genetic research for color blindness, they can do all the therapy in the world trying to change the ratio of the rods and cones in the eye to fix it, but you still have to have the right neural pathway to receive the new data from the eye, so brain structure does have something to do with it. That was my assumption too. The brain is plastic though to some extent in that different areas that aren't used can be recruited for other functions. Maybe all they need to do is change it in the early development. That is what the owl monkeys guys are implying is suggested. I have read about how there are specialized functions built into how the rods are interpreted in the brain so I rather assumed they were separate systems. Visual processing is one of those areas of the brain that defies easy understanding. Add hallucinations to the mix and the mind filling in missing pieces that you didn't actually see and it gets unbelievably messy trying to figure out how it all works. Edited January 25, 2011 by BobZenor
Guest Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 So what I'm gathering from all of these articles is that night/day vision, and mammals that have both, all basically arise from the same genetic pattern, it just depends on the environmental pressures as to the timing of what DNA gets turned on when and in what sequence that allows for the variety. So no need for the paranormal or bizarre explanations for bigfoot's night vision abilities. Well said! I get pert tired of "and then the BF shot beams of light from it's eyes!" They're biological entities....same as bear, 'possums, deer ect...Multi-dimentional beings don't leave footprints, or we'd be seeing TAPS casting footprints. DUH? Not to drag this off topic, stuff like that really fries my bacon. Until a volunteer body turns up all we have are annodotal observations to stimuli to base our theories on. At least this isn't the 1600's and we're not basing their calls on a case of "ill humors of the blood" or "furry- histrionics". Now I'm going to toodle off and look into the possibility of mammalian vision in the UV spectrum. :D
Guest Kronprinz Adam Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 This has been so hashed over and written about so much that it now is painful to see again... The simple answer is that no one knows... And that anything short of killing a live Sasquatch on an examining table will we ever get an answer... Because the eyes are the first things to go after death, and shortly after death are worthless to study... So your quest for an answer is not likely to come any time soon... I think there is a simple solution for all this...Bigfoot sees in the dark the same way other mammals do!! For example, coyotes and some lemurs (loris) are very active at night!!! I think Bigfoot has no different sight mechanisms!!
Guest ajciani Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 The topic of bigfoot night vision has been discussed, but as to Jodie's original post, bigfoots, if they are a mammalian species, are tetrachromatic. As for seeing in other parts of the spectrum, those pentachromatic creatures usually pick up purple and ultra violet as extra colors. Sometimes, they might see near-IR. The radio guest's (Matt K's) comment that bigfoot would be blinded by daylight is a response to the idea that bigfoot can see near IR, and use it to navigate in the dark. If bigfoot could concentrate enough near-IR onto its retina to see at night, then during the day, it's eyes would be photo-bleached. I should also note for many of you, that the generic term IR (infra red) spans a range of frequencies 40 times broader than the visible spectrum. Thermal energy is way down at the long wavelength end, while near IR is way up at the high wavelength end, and almost visible (hence near). The insects and fish that can see IR, see near IR. Near IR is also what IR cameras use. Only extremely hot things (like the Sun and incandescent light bulb) and some chemical reactions produce near IR. Body temperature objects produce no near IR, and only emit at the longest wavelengths. The only animals which are known to be able to "see" the long wave IR are pit vipers. To be technically correct, pit vipers actually feel the heat, just as we do, except the pits focus it and make the sensation directional.
Recommended Posts