The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
So they're three different proteins, each absorbs light with a different preferred frequency, and then the nervous system keeps track of those signals compares and contrasts them to extract some understanding of the wavelength composition of light.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
Right, so if you imagine that in the first layer of the retina where this transformation occurs from electromagnetic radiation into neural signals that you have different kinds of sensitive cells that are expressing, they're making different molecules within themselves for this express purpose of absorbing photons which is the first step in the process of seeing, now it turns out that altogether, there are about five proteins like this that we need to think about in the typical retina, but for seeing color really it's three of them.