[teawrecks]

Not sure what you mean by, "It's not biological evolution". The linguistic phenomenon you're referencing doesn't make any sense outside the context of the specific evolutionary history of the human eye. It would be like saying the shape of something has nothing to do with the shadow it casts.

[monocasa]

Sure it does, because there's languages in use today that don't separate blue from green, and those native speakers absolutely have blue cones in addition to green and red ones. Language development is fairly universally thought to have happened after we evolved our blue sensing cones, so that doesn't explain the difference. Specifically we evolved blue cones about 30 million years ago, before we were any semblance of human.

The thought is that it's a phenomenon that by giving a name to the concept and training your young, our brains become better at differentiating it at a conscious level. The progression in language is thought to be an artifact of how strongly the differences between naturally occut colors appear to our brains, and an innate way to separate the state space of natural color rather than a purely mirroring of biological evolution of color sensing hardware in the eye.