Photoinduced biological processes occur via one-photon absorption in natural light, which is weak, continuous wave, and incoherent, but are often studied in the laboratory using pulsed coherent light. Here, we compare the response of a molecule to these two very different sources within a quantized radiation field picture. The latter is shown to induce coherent time evolution in the molecule, whereas the former does not. As a result, the coherent time dependence observed in the laboratory experiments will not be relevant to the natural biological process. Emphasis is placed on resolving confusions regarding this issue that are shown to arise from aspects of quantum measurement and from a lack of appreciation of the proper description of the absorbed photon.T he nature of the molecular response to weak electromagnetic fields, where the probability of absorbing a photon is small, is a subject of considerable importance in light-induced biological processes. Examples include light-harvesting complexes (1-3) and vision (4-8), both of which operate in the domain of weak photon flux.Recent experimental studies have generated considerable excitement (9-11) due to the observation of long-lived coherent [electronic and vibrational (12)] quantum time evolution subsequent to pulsed laser excitation of various biomolecules (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19). Similar enthusiasm (20) has been generated by the coherent vibrational dynamics observed in retinal isomerization induced by pulsed laser light (4, 8). These references, as well as many others, either explicitly or implicitly assume that the observed coherent time evolution is of considerable biological significance.Of particular relevance, then, is whether the observed coherent time evolution does, indeed, play a biological role. Is the molecular response in laboratory laser experiments that use pulsed coherent laser light (6,13,15,16) relevant when the system is irradiated with natural light, i.e., radiation arising from a thermal source that is essentially CW and highly incoherent (7,21,22)? This issue (albeit not biologically motivated) was treated some time ago using a semiclassical approach to the light-matter interaction within first-order perturbation theory (21), leading to the conclusion that the responses are very different: Isolated molecules subject to pulsed coherent laser light display subsequent coherent time evolution, whereas those subject to incoherent light from a thermal CW source do not. In addition, that study showed that pulsed incoherent light, which by definition is partially coherent, induces time evolution on the time scale of the pulse, i.e., the molecule responds to the time envelope of the light pulse. However, for sunlight, for example, the time scale of the envelope is hours, whereas a stationary nonevolving state is reached almost immediately.These results have profound implications for biological processes induced by weak fields (photosynthesis, vision), where the probability of single-photon absorption is small due to the low photon flux. T...