Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Oolon Colluphid · 04-03-2007, 08:44 AM

So I logged into my Hotmail account linked to my website for the first time in a while, and found an email about my SMOGGM entry on tarsier eyes:

Quote:

your section on the supposed inadequacy of the tariers ocular developement is not well thought through, tarsiers have no need for a tapetum lucidum and it may even negate some of the effectiveness of their large eyes altogether due to its tendancy to blurr vision, which would detract from the usefulness of the fovea, furthermore the lucidum is unnessecary since the tarsier primarily uses its keen hearing to hunt and avoid predators at night. also the large size of the eye leaves less need for a fine vision inhibiting feature such as the tapetum lucidum, and the large size is also an essential defense mechanism for this animal. to follow your insight would be like being led by a blind man ( if it was a tarsier it would also have to be deaf)

My response if formulating along the lines of...

Quote:

your section on the supposed inadequacy of the tariers ocular developement is not well thought through

Thank you for your opinion...

Quote:

tarsiers have no need for a tapetum lucidum

With each eye bigger than its brain, probably not. And that is the point. Waste of materials when the alleged designer knew of a simple bit of kit for that sort of job.

Quote:

and it may

... or may not...

Quote:

even negate some of the effectiveness of their large eyes altogether due to its tendancy to blurr vision, which would detract from the usefulness of the fovea,

You can cite references for this blurring effect, presumably?

Thing is, though: owls have a tapetum lucidum.
www.pauldfrost.co.uk/intro_o.html

Are you saying that owls have poor, blurred night vision?

Quote:

furthermore the lucidum is unnessecary since the tarsier primarily uses its keen hearing to hunt and avoid predators at night.

Its eyes are just there for decoration, is that what you're saying?

Quote:

also the large size of the eye leaves less need for a fine vision inhibiting feature such as the tapetum lucidum,

And that's why owls also have eyes bigger than their brains, again so big they cannot turn rotate them...?

Quote:

and the large size is also an essential defense mechanism for this animal.

Yep. If attacked, it can pull them out and whip them around like a bolas.

Quote:

to follow your insight would be like being led by a blind man

There are none so blind as those blinded by dogma.

Quote:

( if it was a tarsier it would also have to be deaf)

So you think the tarsier does everything by hearing, and doesn't actually use its eyes for seeing with. Cool. Can you cite references please?

Anyone else, before I reply...? What's with this tapetum blurring?

uberhobo · 04-03-2007, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oolon

Anyone else, before I reply...? What's with this tapetum blurring?

It appears to come from the wikipedia entry on

tapetum lucidum,though there's no reference for that claim.

Theophage · 04-03-2007, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oolon Colluphid

Yep. If attacked, it can pull them out and whip them around like a bolas.

I LOL'd!

ninewands · 04-03-2007, 10:24 AM

Even if the allegation of blurring is true, what would be more important to a nocturnal animal, a sharper image, or a brighter one? I would think brighter since most nosturnal animals have very little use for finely detailed vision.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-03-2007, 10:24 AM	#4
ninewands Beloved Deceased Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: ? Posts: 3,310	Even if the allegation of blurring is true, what would be more important to a nocturnal animal, a sharper image, or a brighter one? I would think brighter since most nosturnal animals have very little use for finely detailed vision.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.