More generally, human cancers cells often seem like they've rolled-back to an earlier, atavistic set of behaviors.
I wonder if that's a "direction" of random mutations which is less-likely to be attacked by the immune system, because it leads to things that are less-alien because they were normal at one point. (Or may still be normal in limited contexts.)
Ex:
> The hallmarks of cancer are not the acquisition of novel behaviors due to genomic mutation but rather the re-deployment of ancient, unicellular programs that support survival of the cell at the expense of the host and break the contract of cooperation required for multicellular life.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00796...
https://www.amazon.com/Red-Queen-Evolution-Human-Nature/dp/0...
This is one of the most fascinating books I've ever read.
Contrast with squid eyes, that have nerves underneath the light sensitive cells. No blind spots, better light sensitivity.
Ha! It’s the same thing.
Aren't crocodiles and dinosaurs seperarte branches ?
They start out saying oxygen vessels partially and subtly occludes vision.
So the bird's eye doesn't suffer from this disadvantage.
In other words: It uses 15x more energy but presumably also sees 15x sharper and more into the distance than our human eye.
Sounds proportional at most, but certainly not inefficient for the bird's purposes?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09978-w
Damsgaard, C., Skøtt, M.V., Williams, C.J.A. et al. Oxygen-free metabolism in the bird inner retina supported by the pecten. Nature 650, 657–663 (2026).
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/newsroom/news-releases/...
I never knew, but it explains why when you close to fainting you lose your vision. Or when you are working at high heart rate close to your maximum. It works as a kind of a warning sign, than you are probably shouldn't try it that hard.
> The lack of blood vessels could also offer birds the advantage of better vision.
Now they are ready to reintroduce blood vessels back, but this time behind the retina.
That would have favored eyes built for sharper vision at the expense of higher metabolic demands.
The different evolutionary track may come from the fact that theropods stood upright on two legs, so they could scan farther across the landscape. Also, they were active during the day. Early mammals, by contrast, were mostly nocturnal, so hearing and smell mattered more than sharp vision.
Interestingly, humans have some of the best vision in the animal kingdom and humans are both upright standing and diurnal, i.e. active in the daytime.
Fascinating mental shift to explain things like the menstrual cycle (why would we want an environment that can be fully shed every month? Isn’t that crazy expensive?)
I believe that birds brains are kind of uniquely advanced too. Lightweight (in terms of mass) structured differently to mammalian brains... I've heard a definition of sight as "a bit of the brain popping out for a look". I wonder if the same brain density tricks bird brains use are used in some parts of their vision system. This is all as my memory serves. Feel free to correct any mistakes in my understanding.
There's some very interesting work happening to understand their calls too. If (my) memory serves, there able to identify particular call types quite well now.
If someone calls you a "bird brain", perhaps that could be taken as a complement! Trying to do more with less!
Fascinating to also think that birds are of course evolved dinosaurs. Raptors of the sky. It would be fascinating to link whats being looked at here with any kind of data that can be pulled from fossil evidence (though there might not be much...). I wonder which unique bird genetic traits were useful or super enhanced dinosaur traits.
...I think the strong but light bone structure was something inherited from the dinosaurs too? Fascinating creatures.
On the face of it, seems sensible that avian evolution has spent many genetic GPU cycles to generate advanced vision needed to fly and hunt from the air.... One wonders which "subroutines" have been reused from dino-days, as mentioned.
When I was in college, running on the track, I decided to see how fast I could run by ignoring the stress and pain. My vision began rolling and surging in a weird way impossible to describe. I stopped and laid down on the ground, unable to do anything but pant.
I realized that what I had done was extremely stupid and never did it again.
https://aeon.co/essays/why-pregnancy-is-a-biological-war-bet...
(source - worked at a raptor conservancy). It depends on which bird. Some are really smart and can learn tricks (e.g. retrieving specific objects) for food rewards. They can work out simple puzzles, such as finding food hidden under sliding blocks. Crested Caracaras are examples in my experience.
Others are much less intelligent, in particular owls, who aren't particularly wise. They have great instinctive behaviours but can't solve puzzles. This is partly because, for their vision, a lot of their skull is filled with eye rather than brain - owl eyes are tubular rather than eyeballs and can't move in their sockets, hence the 270 degree neck turning.
That's hard to reconcile everything else we know: The baby needs a healthy mother in order to survive until and past childbirth and to be healthy itself. For the mother, for multiple reasons, nothing is more important than the baby's survival and well-being. Humans generally care for and will help and sacrifice for other humans, most especially those in their clan (however that's defined) and with their genes.
⸻
1. While checking Wikipedia to confirm my belief about feathers, I found that the consensus among paleontologists was that tyrannosaurs had superb vision, better than humans, in fact.
Any ideas how to raise babies more efficent?
Evolution does not optimize for the individual, but the species.
There's a robin who often sits in the fig tree in my back yard, giving friendly little chirps whenever I'm near. (I have no way of knowing whether it's the same robin from day to day, but if it's different robins then they all seem to be on the same wavelength.)
Anyhow, today a neighborhood cat came to the back door, and was aggressively friendly when I opened it. Clearly offering affection in exchange for... what? I've never given this cat anything before, apart from a friendly pat. Meanwhile the robin was overhead in the fig tree, giving totally different chirps than I'm used to. Clearly "warning!" "danger!" chirps. It was amazing how unambiguous they were.
I was puzzled who the robin's audience for this was, however. I'd never noticed it freaking out about cats before. Was it trying to warn me for some reason? Trying to warn other nearby birds? I couldn't see any. I thought that maybe it was just shouting at the cat out of general pique.
Then the cat led me to the answer. Turns out it had trapped an (uninjured) baby squirrel behind a planter box near my door. It couldn't reach the squirrel, and the squirrel couldn't escape. The cat seemed to be under the impression that since we were now friends, I could move the planter box and help it to get the baby squirrel. Sadly I had to disappoint it, and after unexpectedly acrobatic shenanigans, I facilitated the squirrel's escape instead.
The robin, meanwhile, ceased its warning chirps the moment it saw that I was aware of the baby squirrel. Then it watched the ensuing affair unfold, from the safety of the fig tree. Once the squirrel was safe and the cat had left disappointed, the robin looked at me, gave a few of its usual happy chirps, and flew away.
> the dinosaurs had split from crocodiles
Birds and crocodiles are both archosaurs (which includes all dinosaurs as well as crocodiles) and are each others' closest living relatives.
The distinction is very sharp and clear: adaptation is not a mere property discovered in the organism, but an exciting post-hoc human classification of evolutionary history. It's powered by the grand human psyche doing what it does best: projecting competitive, status-oriented social psychology onto non-human biological processes.
If you ever wondered "how dare biology fail to conform to a clear narrative easily processed by the human mind?", adaptation fixes exactly that.
I'm not sure why this is easier, but I'm guessing it has to do with how much oxygen you need for aerobic glycolysis. In blood, glucose just exists in the plasma by itself, oxygen has to be carried by red blood cells. Without blood vessels it's probably difficult to get enough oxygen through diffusion into the inner retina.
Fun fact: the human cornea also doesn't have blood vessels. Instead oxygen diffuses from the atmosphere into it and from the aqueous humor - a fluid? behind the cornea. The aqueous humor is also where the cornea (and the lens) get nutrients from.
Yep, your cornea basically breathes!
> anaerobic glycolysis that is significantly less efficient than oxygen-powered metabolism
> Oxygen molecules make energy production in cells extremely efficient.
> the presence of oxygen makes energy extraction from a single glucose molecule 15 times as efficient, and sometimes more.
> This energetic ability is powered by an inefficient metabolism.
> This suggested that the strange structure wasn’t bringing oxygen into the bird’s retina; rather, it was helping to pump glucose in, thereby enabling the less efficient anaerobic process.
In Central Europe, most of the big game (boars, deer etc.), but also foxes and hares have become nocturnal. The great exception is the Exclusion Zone around Chernobyl, where they all have reverted to diurnal life and tourists will quite often encounter something like a fox walking right in the middle of a road, looking at them with curiosity.
Everywhere else, that would be sign of rabies, but there, it is the original normal behavior.
If I go outside and the crows are going crazy, something interesting is happening.
Mostly it is hawks, and the crows will chase and dive bomb them.
Once I came outside and the crows were going nuts, but not flying. And right in the middle of the driveway was a bobcat. no wonder.
I'm not sure how fainting works, but fainting looks to me like an energy crisis, so kinda not surprising the results are the same.
It feels like most people mix the two things up: excellent vision and predatory response. An eagle can absolutely see a mouse hiding in the bushes, not moving. But a moving prey is what triggers their predatory response. Plausibly… they probably don’t attack a non-moving mouse because it could be a dead mouse.
Human vision evolved for different things. Our ancestors were tree-dwelling and optimized for depth perception, social cues and color acuity. So it’s just a different strategy.
Don't confuse terms like "parasite" with implying evil or malicious intent.
As the RQ shows, this process often leads to a dead end. Such as a short term success for cancer, but no long term success. Deadly infections lose their deadliness over time, as killing the host does not lead to propagation.
Evolution often falls into a local optima, which will inevitably lead to extinction.
Scientists noted that the bird eye produces good results with a less efficient process. This article is only about the explanation for that. Presumably they would have been just as interested if a human level eye also operated without oxygen.
Ever
> sometimes
Always
How could it?
Evolution "optimizes" (as far as local hill climbing can go) fitness, which is the ability to produce viable offspring. Genes get mutated and then combined (in sexual species) and passed to offspring via reproduction ... that's the process that results in biological evolution, which is the change over time of the presence of alleles in a population. That's it -- there's no secret "evolution" sauce or engine. The optimization for fitness occurs through the environment affecting the relative survivability of traits--traits that increase survivability become more common in the population--this part is tautological.
> Though we normally can’t perceive them, these vessels always occlude a portion of what we see, and for an important reason.
Efficiency is input / output, not just input.
15x input / 15x output is just as efficient as 1x input / 1x output.
You can see the effect in how prey is eaten after a hunt. A mammalian sprint-predator like a cheetah has to catch its breath before eating what it has just caught. Its avian equivalent, like a Peregrine falcon, can immediately start eating.
a 60 fps computer display for pigeon vision is like a sequential slideshow it's much too slow to blur into what they would perceive as motion
many species of birds when they switch posture the motion is so fast it is imperceptible to the human eye it's like switching from one still frame to another
humans have perhaps 1/10th the temporal granularity that pigeons have
this leads me to the conclusion that if birds have a subjective experience it has a very different tempo than for humans or indeed most mammals
I've had two complete blackouts due to Ventricular Fibrillation, and one near blackout where the VF stopped after nine seconds (as reported by my ICD). In my experience, vision and thinking seem to stop at the same time, with increased dizziness being the first functional effect (after perhaps 7-8 seconds). My ICD is set to fire at 14 seconds, by which time I'm guaranteed unconscious and won't feel the painful shock. It takes 2-3 seconds to recognise the warning signs (painless fluttering sensation in my chest), so there are 4-5 seconds of normal consciousness when I can try to make sure I fail safe. Like sitting down.
This is why I don't drive anymore.
I was always amazed at the idea of a Radar, how it can detect objects at large distances by using reflected EM radiation, then I remember that eyes are just a RADAR and I am 10x amazed by the fact....
Some human musicians and composers have played with similar themes, increasing or decreasing tempos by huge amounts. Examples of slow pieces include As Slow As Possible by John Cage, with a performance begun in 2001 due to end in 2640, and Longplayer by Jem Finer, which lasts 1,000 years. Musician and YouTube Adam Neely has an episode addressing the fastest tempos discernable by humans. At the upper range, the inter-beat range simply merges into a new soundform, at about 15--20 Hz, the lower bound of human audio perception.
Cats also seem to have faster reactions that might be overlooked by our perceptive frame rate (imo, tested after recording interactions and reinterpreting them). Beyond eyesight, I suspect human breathing can be too noisy for their ears (consistent hissing).
I'm not sure how VF works, but maybe the deficit of oxygen develops much faster, so it leads to complete blackout in seconds?
> there are 4-5 seconds of normal consciousness when I can try to make sure I fail safe. Like sitting down.
Fainting and workout take more time. Definitely more. When I fainted it took tens few minutes from the moment I broke my leg. When I ride my bike up to a hill with all my might, it takes a couple of minutes to see darkness in my eyes.
There are similarities between the warm-bloodedness of mammals and birds that might not be coincidences.
An alternative possibility is that some ancestor of all extant amniotes already had some kind of warm-bloodedness.
Later, in the ancestors of crocodiles, turtles and lizards (including snakes), the capacity for generating heat has been abandoned, in order to save energy and allow them to survive with much less food than birds and mammals.
There is some evidence in favor of this hypothesis, besides the similarities in temperature regulation between birds and mammals.
For instance, in contrast with the amphibians, the lizards, snakes, crocodiles and turtles are dependent on high internal temperatures for their bodies to function correctly. Because they cannot generate internally the required heat, they must take it from the environment, so most of them can live only in warmer climates and they may need every day to do things like basking in solar light, before any sustained activity.
It is also known that already the ancestors of pterosaurs and dinosaurs had their bodies covered by some kind of hair, which might have had the purpose of thermal insulation. Later, that hair has evolved into the feathers of birds and of those dinosaurs more closely related to them, while in the biggest dinosaurs the hair or the feathers were lost, like also in elephants and other such big animals where cooling becomes the problem, not heating.
At least for some dinosaur or pterosaur fossils bone growth patterns are consistent with high body temperature. In the line of synapsid amniotes leading to mammals, high body temperature also appeared earlier than any ancestor of the extant mammals, but it is not known when exactly this happened.
In conclusion, perhaps warm-bloodedness (homeothermy) has appeared independently in the ancestors of birds and of mammals, but perhaps not, it could have also appeared before the split of amniotes into these 2 branches.
In general, this is the most difficult in guessing the past evolution, when you have a feature that exists only in some of the descendants of a common ancestor, is this because of independent gains of that feature, or because all the groups that do not have the feature have lost it.
Most mistakes made in the past about the evolution of living beings have been caused by underestimating the probability of multiple losses, because it was wrongly believed that evolution goes from simple to complex. Now we know that losses and simplifications are extremely frequent, typically more frequent than the development of complex features, which happens independently more seldom than assumed in the past.
Covid seems to have its mortality dramatically shrunk.
Our genomes are full of bits and pieces of ancient disease DNA. Our bodies are full of bugs that have evolved into peaceful coexistence. Some bugs even became part of us (mitochondria).
I'm not moving goalposts. My 2nd comment just adds detail, which i hoped the reader would manage to infer based on my 1st one. That's all.
My point is it's like saying a car is more inefficient than a bicycle because it uses (more) fuel... totally ignoring that it also gets you much further and that too much faster.
Whereas a valid, to me, criticism would be that a particular car is less efficient than another car bc it burns more gas, when both do about as good a job.
That does not support your argument that there is a adaptive advantage for reduced deadliness. The fact that it was exceedingly deadly to non co-evolved hosts indicates it was not the disease that became less deadly, but that the co-evolved hosts developed better defenses.
> Our bodies are full of bugs that have evolved into peaceful coexistence.
That is a argument that there is a continuous adaptive advantage to reduced deadliness down to ~0%. Again, Rabies had and continues to have a nearly 100% fatality rate in co-evolved hosts for thousands of years. Smallpox had a 10-30% fatality rate. Any magical inherent adaptive advantage for reduced deadliness failed to materialize to continue pushing down their deadliness.
Or put another way, a disease can have a 30% mortality rate and still do a really bang-up job at propagation with limited adaptive pressure to reduce that further for thousands of years. Peaceful coexistence is more likely a artifact of the specific dynamic than any sort of meaningful fundamental advantage to reduced deadliness.
That's a good argument, but it is not proof that there wasn't some adaptation of smallpox to Europeans. The immune systems of Europeans and Indians diverged 10,000 years ago.
> Rabies had and continues to have a nearly 100% fatality rate in co-evolved hosts for thousands of years.
I doubt that there were large enough epidemics of rabies to influence its evolution.
> Peaceful coexistence is more likely a artifact of the specific dynamic than any sort of meaningful fundamental advantage to reduced deadliness.
Killing your host does not help propagation of the disease. Causing your host to cough and sneeze is a great way to propagate.
The bird retina is one of the most energetically expensive tissues in the animal kingdom, yet it doesn’t use the energy advantage of oxygen. New research finally explains how this is possible.

The eye of a red-and-green macaw, with no blood vessels in sight. How can a bird eye work so well without oxygen?
Leonardo Ramos
When an optometrist shines a bright light into your eyes, a vast, branching tree sprouts in your field of vision. This is the shadow of blood vessels. Though we normally can’t perceive them, these vessels always occlude a portion of what we see, and for an important reason. They power the retina, a thin layer of nerve tissue in the back of the eye that communicates light signals to the brain.
The retina is one of the body’s most energetically expensive tissues. Built from complex networks of sometimes more than 100 different types of neurons, retinal tissue consumes two to three times more energy than the same mass of typical brain tissue. That’s why most vertebrate retinas, including our own, are furrowed with dense, branching networks of blood vessels: to deliver oxygen and other ingredients for producing energy.
But there’s a significant exception to this rule. Birds have retinas that mostly lack blood vessels. This may seem especially strange given birds’ exceptional vision. The bird retina is “one of the most metabolically active tissues in the animal kingdom, yet it worked with no apparent blood perfusion,” said Christian Damsgaard, an evolutionary physiologist at Aarhus University. “It was a complete paradox.” For centuries this has puzzled scientists, who figured that the bird retina must obtain oxygen through a unique, undiscovered process.
Damsgaard is the lead author of a study, published in the journal Nature in January 2026, that showed for the first time that bird retinas don’t have some unusual adaptation for acquiring oxygen — they survive without it entirely. Instead, to bring energy to the tissue, they use a process called anaerobic glycolysis that is significantly less efficient than oxygen-powered metabolism but gets the job done.

The evolutionary physiologist Christian Damsgaard measured gas exchange in bird eyes with microsensors. Surprisingly, the inner retina, a highly active tissue, used no oxygen.
Jesper Ekmann
By studying how tissues can survive without oxygen, researchers can potentially develop therapeutics to treat conditions of oxygen deprivation, such as strokes. More fundamentally, they want to understand the limits of evolution.
“What are the extremes of life?” Damsgaard said. “How far can we bend the conditions under which highly metabolically active tissues can actually survive?”
A bird, he learned, can bend them pretty far.
Around 3.4 billion years ago, cyanobacteria invented photosynthesis. Slowly at first, then quickly, their newly evolved method of making energy from sunlight succeeded and spread. The cells pumped so much oxygen, a by-product of photosynthesis, into the atmosphere that it changed the course of life on Earth.
Oxygen molecules make energy production in cells extremely efficient. To extract energy, cells break down a glucose molecule into two pyruvate molecules. This process releases two molecules of ATP (adenosine triphosphate), life’s universal energy currency. A cell lacking oxygen can go only this far. Oxygen, however, enables further biochemical reactions that break down pyruvate and produce another 30 molecules of ATP. In other words, the presence of oxygen makes energy extraction from a single glucose molecule 15 times as efficient, and sometimes more.

Birds, such as this alpine chough (in the crow family), use their exceptional vision to hunt, forage, and migrate. This energetic ability is powered by an inefficient metabolism.
Jean-Paul Wettstein
The energetic advantage of oxygen, through the process of aerobic respiration, was transformative. Once oxygen imbued the atmosphere, evolution selected for organisms that could use it. “We’ve been hooked on 20% [atmospheric] oxygen for millions of years,” said Gary Lewin, a molecular physiologist at the Max Delbrück Center in Berlin. This Great Oxidation Event was followed by mass extinction, as organisms using oxygen outcompeted just about everybody else. While some life forms, such as certain bacteria, are adapted to life without oxygen, all complex, multicellular organisms need that energy advantage to survive.
Humans and most other animals can survive with little or no oxygen for several minutes at most. The mammal with the highest known tolerance for low-oxygen conditions is the naked mole rat, which can survive for up to 18 minutes breathing anoxic air in underground burrows. A few cold-blooded aquatic creatures, including freshwater turtles and goldfish, can persist in low-oxygen conditions at the bottom of a frozen lake for a year or two. But for most animals, a steady supply of oxygen is a must-have.
Without oxygen, a variety of processes shut down — especially in metabolically demanding tissues such as the brain. Without that energy, our cells malfunction and die.

Naked mole rats can survive without oxygen for 18 minutes. To generate energy without oxygen, they use anaerobic glycolysis fueled by fructose.
Javier Ábalos
All this is why, in 2019, when Damsgaard learned that bird retinas lack blood vessels, he was confused. How could this high-energy tissue survive, let alone perform at the level observed in sharp-sighted bird species, without oxygen?
He pored over the voluminous research on the subject, all of which pointed at a mysterious structure in the bird eye known as the pecten oculi. In the 17th century, anatomists first described the unusual organ: It looked like a radiator, comblike, riveted with blood vessels, and with a large surface area. In the centuries that followed, researchers debated whether it helps deliver oxygen to retinal tissue in bird eyes. Damsgaard read about 30 different theories about the pecten oculi’s function based on anatomy alone.
“Nobody had really done direct physiological measurements on this structure,” he said. “That’s where we came in.”
Mark Belan/Quanta Magazine
In his lab, which studies the exchange of gases such as oxygen and carbon dioxide between vertebrates and their environments, Damsgaard’s team used microsensors to measure oxygen levels in the retinas of zebra finches, pigeons, and chickens. Indeed, in the inner retina, which completely lacks blood vessels, they found no oxygen. (They did measure oxygen in the outer retina, at the back of the eye, which has some blood vessels.)
That was “striking,” Damsgaard said. “Half of the retina lives in a chronic state of anoxia, where there’s no oxygen present at all.”
Using spatial transcriptomics, a method that combines cell imaging with RNA sequencing, the researchers mapped which genes were active in different parts of the retinal tissue. Genes associated with typical aerobic respiration were expressed in the outer retina, where there are blood vessels. In the oxygen-depleted inner retina, only genes associated with anaerobic respiration were active.
To trace the paths of nutrients, Damsgaard and his team worked with cancer scientists who are experts on oxygen-free metabolism (tumor cells often use anaerobic glycolysis to make energy). They found that the inner retina demanded 2.5 times more glucose than other parts of the bird brain.
Then they examined the pecten oculi. Their spatial transcriptomics data showed that the genes for glucose were highly active there. This suggested that the strange structure wasn’t bringing oxygen into the bird’s retina; rather, it was helping to pump glucose in, thereby enabling the less efficient anaerobic process.
As a by-product, anaerobic glycolysis creates lactic acid, which can accumulate and become toxic. The researchers also saw that genes for lactic acid transporters — the molecules that move lactic acid out of tissues — were active in the pecten oculi.

The diversity of bird eyes, lacking blood vessels (left to right). Top: Northern gannet, Eurasian eagle-owl, maguari stork. Center: rooster, rockhopper penguin, parrot (species unknown). Bottom: bald eagle, blue-and-yellow macaw, unknown species.
(Left to right) Top: Chris Hellier, Jiří Dočkal, Annette Lozinski. Center: Mohammed Brzan, Nico Marín, Shyamli Kashyap. Bottom: Ingo Doerrie, David Clode, Hasan Almasi
Their findings provide compelling evidence for the role of the pecten oculi in supporting anaerobic glycolysis, which “has been a mystery for a long time,” said Thomas Baden, a neuroscientist at the University of Sussex who was not involved in the study. “The insight that the retina basically goes oxygen-free, at least in some layers, is surprising. … It really gets properly down to zero.”
This pathway is used by cancer cells and temporarily by our muscles when they’re strained and can’t get enough oxygen — such as when we’re running. But no known vertebrate tissue was known to survive in completely anoxic conditions for a lifetime.
The bird’s retina and its no-oxygen power system are so unusual that they naturally raise questions about how they could have evolved.
This is “a series of beautiful experiments,” said Karthik Shekhar of the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the research. It’s an example of how an animal took the vertebrate eye — a highly conserved structure whose origins go back some 560 million years to a light-sensitive patch on a primitive creature — and tinkered with it to fit its own needs. “Evolution is not really like an inventor; it acts more like a tinkerer,” he said, citing a 1977 essay, “Evolution and Tinkering,” by the French biologist François Jacob. “It takes parts that have existed long before, and it recombines, reinvents, and reshapes.”
The researchers tried to pinpoint when the pecten oculi might have arisen by comparing oxygen levels in the bird retina to those in not-so-distant relatives: two reptile species, Chinese pond turtles and broad-snouted caimans. The reptile retinas had normal oxygen levels and no indication of anaerobic glycolysis. This led Damsgaard’s team to conclude that the oxygen-free tissue likely evolved sometime during the dinosaur era, after the avian lineage had split from crocodiles but hadn’t yet evolved into modern birds. This was around the same time that the retina thickened.
Still, that rough time estimate can’t explain what evolutionary pressure might have selected for the unusual retinal tissue. Researchers can only speculate. “I think the system evolved in theropod dinosaurs in response to selection for sharp vision for tracking prey and identifying mates,” Damsgaard suggested. Then, later, when birds took to the skies, it “served as the physiological basis for maintaining retinal function” during high-altitude flights, when oxygen levels are low, he speculated.
The lack of blood vessels could also offer birds the advantage of better vision. The bird retina is complex and densely packed with more than a hundred cell types that work to render the world in great resolution. Birds use their exceptional visual sense for hunting and foraging — consider an owl tracking a mouse from the sky, an albatross watching for signs of fish on the ocean’s surface, or a hummingbird locating hundreds of flowers every day — as well as for following landmarks across the landscape during migration. Without blood vessels obstructing their view, birds’ retinal cells might be able to take in more visual information.
Could this be an adaptation, or is it a coincidence of evolutionary history? There’s no way to know for sure how birds’ incredible vision evolved. There’s this mystery “that has lingered around us,” Baden said. “What is it about birds that makes their eyes so special?” Their retinal power system seems as if it could explain what makes them so unique. However, Lewin, the physiologist, is cautious about overextending the results and interpretations to every bird, given that the researchers haven’t looked at any migratory species.
The implications stretch well beyond bird adaptations to biomedicine. A common thread in many medical conditions is a drop in oxygen delivery to tissues, which, depending on where it occurs, can lead to scars or brain damage. Human brains can tolerate maybe a minute of total anoxia, Lewin said. That’s what makes strokes, which cut off blood and oxygen supply to parts of the brain, so devastating. By studying low-oxygen conditions in creatures such as naked mole rats and birds, scientists can gain insight into how tissues can tolerate low-oxygen conditions.
“Maybe we can get inspiration for how nature solved these problems by millions of years of natural selection,” Damsgaard said. “There’s so much to be learned from these animals that are able to do something that we cannot do.”
The Quanta Newsletter
Get highlights of the most important news delivered to your email inbox

How Unknowable Math Can Help Hide Secrets