Lefty, to be pedantic, I think though that the average camera has more dynamic range than the eye, and certainly a whole lot less distortion (eyes are terrible for distortion!). However, what we 'see' isn't what comes in through our eyes, but what our brains perceive from it, and that's a whole different matter with a quite amazing and sophisticated range of processing being applied.
As for the above image of the dog, I like the muted colours. I think it is a very useful visual cue to indicate the overall lighting level by muting colours when it's darker. This is analogous to what happens with your eyesight, that your colour receptors work less well in lower light, with bright vibrant colours meaning direct sunlight, and lower saturation meaning a lazy spot in the shade. The colours haven't changed of course, but our perception has shifted with the amount of available light, and so it's a good way of reflecting this in photography (well I think so!).
As for the above image of the dog, I like the muted colours. I think it is a very useful visual cue to indicate the overall lighting level by muting colours when it's darker. This is analogous to what happens with your eyesight, that your colour receptors work less well in lower light, with bright vibrant colours meaning direct sunlight, and lower saturation meaning a lazy spot in the shade. The colours haven't changed of course, but our perception has shifted with the amount of available light, and so it's a good way of reflecting this in photography (well I think so!).