Skip to main content
6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 4, 2016 at 8:56 comment added The Nate It's not an entirely new answer, far as I understand the question, since it only defines a slightly different way to isolate the dim and bright sensors, but if you think its enough of a difference, I might post it anyhow.
Nov 4, 2016 at 8:53 comment added user @TheNate I'm having a harder time seeing (haha) how a creature would evolve extra eyes, than seeing how it would evolve changes to their existing eyes, but if you have an alternative answer, then please do post it as an answer. Comments are meant to seek clarification or suggest ways to improve a post, not for proposing entirely new answers.
Nov 4, 2016 at 4:21 comment added The Nate I suppose I should clarify: I mean, the genetics could be almost completely duplicated with alternate molecules for certain regulations or for the sensors or both. If all you need is a second set of eyes with a slightly different threshold for pigmentation and some stain in the vitreous humor to cut down on permeability, the changes required are mostly at the fetal development stage.
Nov 4, 2016 at 3:43 comment added The Nate All correct with the assumptions made, but you might also consider redundant/distinct eyes. This would allow a different iris threshold and rod/cone optimizations and NOT require redefining the calculations to accommodate the refinements, apart from incorporating the extra sensors as a gestalt. (Internally, there are some epithelial cells that build up in response to overexposure, limiting light while the retina heals.If you could beam-split and have a high-exposure section that runs through a deeper filter and let less through to the rest, say, maybe that's something to play with.)
Nov 3, 2016 at 23:24 history edited JDługosz CC BY-SA 3.0
added 305 characters in body
Nov 3, 2016 at 23:18 history answered JDługosz CC BY-SA 3.0