General > General Technical Chat
Why evolution by natural selection didn't make use of RF?
vad:
Here is my dilettante’s perspective on this matter:
The typical process of evolution involves genetic mutations that randomly alter the genome, occasionally introducing new physiological capabilities that confer an evolutionary advantage to the genome. These changes usually occur on a small scale and can progress over numerous generations. For example, hundreds of millions of years ago, multicellular organisms developed rudimentary neural systems that aided in controlled movement. Subsequently, certain mutations led to the emergence of photosensitive receptors, which added optical sensors to these neural systems. Initially, these receptors and neural networks were minute and quite primitive, but after millions of generations, they evolved into the complex eyes and visual cortex we see today.
The pivotal term I wish to emphasize is "minute". Radiofrequency (RF) necessitates sensors that are many orders of magnitude larger, ideally around half a wavelength. The likelihood of substantial structures spanning meters emerging from random mutations in small, primitive organisms is significantly lower, presumably by many orders of magnitude, than the likelihood of sensors for UV, visible light, and microwave frequencies developing.
To rephrase, this concerns the relationship between wavelength and cell dimensions. The greater the length, the more intricate the mutation that must take place to generate a sensor suitable for that particular wavelength.
Tomorokoshi:
Obviously, because it's just too expensive to get certified to the RED.
Circlotron:
--- Quote from: vad on August 29, 2023, 01:17:48 am ---Here is my dilettante’s perspective on this matter:
The typical process of evolution involves genetic mutations that randomly alter the genome, occasionally introducing new physiological capabilities that confer an evolutionary advantage to the genome. These changes usually occur on a small scale and can progress over numerous generations. For example, hundreds of millions of years ago, multicellular organisms developed rudimentary neural systems that aided in controlled movement. Subsequently, certain mutations led to the emergence of photosensitive receptors, which added optical sensors to these neural systems. Initially, these receptors and neural networks were minute and quite primitive, but after millions of generations, they evolved into the complex eyes and visual cortex we see today.
The pivotal term I wish to emphasize is "minute". Radiofrequency (RF) necessitates sensors that are many orders of magnitude larger, ideally around half a wavelength. The likelihood of substantial structures spanning meters emerging from random mutations in small, primitive organisms is significantly lower, presumably by many orders of magnitude, than the likelihood of sensors for UV, visible light, and microwave frequencies developing.
To rephrase, this concerns the relationship between wavelength and cell dimensions. The greater the length, the more intricate the mutation that must take place to generate a sensor suitable for that particular wavelength.
--- End quote ---
That line of reasoning would seem to indicate that we should be more likely to have sensors for UV and X-ray and so on. But we don't.
IdahoMan:
A: Because life didn't evolve.
EPAIII:
Not the best answer. We have eyes, but we do not generate light. In fact very few species do. No, we use the light that is provided by the sun. And there also is RF being provided by the sun, other stars, and other celestial objects. So no, our inability to generate RF is not the reason.
Perhaps it has more to do with the size of RF receiving devices vs those which can receive light. Light is electromagnetic waves, just like the RF we are talking about. But the wavelength is a lot shorter so the receiving equipment can be a lot smaller. And, according to Einstein, photons of light are more energetic than those of RF so a single photon of light can produce a larger signal.
Why not UV or X-rays? Well, again look to the sun. Sure it produces those wavelengths. But It produces far more visible light. The planet was bathed in visible light and that is what we evolved to utilize. And I wouldn't be all that surprised if some life forms could or even still can "see" UV. I don't know about X-rays.
Just a quick search; apparently some people CAN see UV light.
https://www.google.com/search?channel=fen&client=firefox-b-1-d&q=seeing+uv+light
OK, another quick search and you can add X-rays to the list of viewable radiation:
https://www.google.com/search?q=can+any+animals+see+x+rays&client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=560955759&channel=fen&sxsrf=AB5stBjxPRN8OFpt83zQnbUuEf7s8ErpMg%3A1693303662255&ei=bsPtZKmVD-axqtsPu6uIgAw&oq=can+any+amimals+see+x-rays&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiGmNhbiBhbnkgYW1pbWFscyBzZWUgeC1yYXlzKgIIADIGEAAYHhgNMggQABiKBRiGAzIIEAAYigUYhgNImoUBULAKWNBhcAJ4AZABAJgB6wGgAcISqgEGNi4xMy4xuAEByAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICBRAAGKIEwgIIEAAYiQUYogTCAggQABgFGB4YDcICChAAGAUYHhgNGA_CAggQABgIGB4YDcICBhAAGAcYHsICBBAAGB7CAggQABgHGB4YD8ICCBAAGAgYBxgewgIIECEYoAEYwwTiAwQYACBBiAYBkAYI&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
Yes, it seems to me that the reason must be at the receiving end, not the generating end. And human beings and their eyes are not the be-all and end-all of existence.
--- Quote from: Gyro on August 27, 2023, 03:03:46 pm ---Derrr, because there is no known way of biologically generating RF and there was nothing to listen to on the radio while they were evolving?
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version