Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do glasses lead to bad eyesight evolving?
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 1 of 25 (574057)
08-13-2010 7:00 PM


My wife and I went to the optometrist and had our eyes examined yesterday. Afterward we had a conversation about evolution and eyesight.
Is the human race getting progressively worse in eyesight? 400 years ago my wife probably would never have survived to adulthood with her eyes. Today she can not only survive, but is a physician and capable of passing on her genes.
Is our ability to provide enhancements to our bodies causing traits like bad eyesight to become more prevalent in future generations?
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-13-2010 7:27 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 4 by Taz, posted 08-13-2010 9:36 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 08-13-2010 10:32 PM Theodoric has replied
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 08-13-2010 11:45 PM Theodoric has replied
 Message 8 by CosmicChimp, posted 08-14-2010 12:51 AM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 08-14-2010 8:04 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 25 (574063)
08-13-2010 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theodoric
08-13-2010 7:00 PM


Topic title change?
Is our ability to provide enhancements to our bodies causing traits like bad eyesight to become more prevalent in future generations?
The above quoted seems to be the real topic theme, while the current topic title ("Evolution and eyesight") seems to invite debate on eyesight evolution.
Message 1 is fine and adequate, but could you come up with a compressed version of the quoted to serve as the topic title? Edit topic title via editing message 1.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theodoric, posted 08-13-2010 7:00 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 3 of 25 (574070)
08-13-2010 9:32 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Do glasses lead to bad eyesight evolving? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 4 of 25 (574071)
08-13-2010 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theodoric
08-13-2010 7:00 PM


No. We know that people had bad eye sight thousands of years before eye glasses were invented. There are records of people having "eye exams" in ancient Greece by being able to or not being able to see certain stars. In ancient China, there were records of people not being able to see at certain distances or not being able to read.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theodoric, posted 08-13-2010 7:00 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 25 (574080)
08-13-2010 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theodoric
08-13-2010 7:00 PM


Re: Deterioration
Theodoric writes:
My wife and I went to the optometrist and had our eyes examined yesterday. Afterward we had a conversation about evolution and eyesight.
Is the human race getting progressively worse in eyesight? 400 years ago my wife probably would never have survived to adulthood with her eyes. Today she can not only survive, but is a physician and capable of passing on her genes.
Is our ability to provide enhancements to our bodies causing traits like bad eyesight to become more prevalent in future generations?
The Biblical record attests to just about every thing pertaing to real life that we have observed over the millenia; that things tend to run down, descend from order to chaos/disorder, deteriorate, and disintegrate.
Many animals were larger the planet was a warmer and had a better habitat, the earth crust was more stable, etc.
According to the Bible, people and likely animals lived longer and the earth's crust was implicated (pre-flood) as to have been more stable.
Though modern people live longer than some centuries previous, they do not necessarily live healthier lives. Technology keeps them alive.
By and large it can be assumed that humans, along with about everything else deteriating, void of planned intelligent design at work.
The Biblical record implicates, by and large, (I say by and large) order to disorder while evolution implicates the opposite.
OFF TOPIC - Please Do Not Respond to this message by continuing in this vein.
AdminPD
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theodoric, posted 08-13-2010 7:00 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Theodoric, posted 08-13-2010 11:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 6 of 25 (574088)
08-13-2010 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Buzsaw
08-13-2010 10:32 PM


Re: Deterioration
Buz,
This is a science thread. I want a scientific answer, not you typical creationist crap. If you don't have anything relevant or scientific don't bother posting to this thread.
Admins,
This thread should not have any biblical or creationist posts. Can you please keep Buz under control.
Thank you

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 08-13-2010 10:32 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 7 of 25 (574089)
08-13-2010 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theodoric
08-13-2010 7:00 PM


Theodoric writes:
Is the human race getting progressively worse in eyesight?
I don't think there is much evidence for that.
We use our eyes differently from the way that they were use historically. To some extent, our bodies attempt to adapt - that's developmental adaptation during our lifetimes, rather than genetic adaptation over multiple generations. And some of the vision problems that we see might be side effects of that developmental adaptation.
There was a report recently, that myopia might be greater in people who spend more time indoors rather than outdoors. I think it was a rather preliminary report, probably not yet confirmed by other researchers. But it is a possible indication of how our way of life affects things.
And then we live a lot longer than was once common, so we are more likely to live long enough to see our eyes deteriorate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theodoric, posted 08-13-2010 7:00 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Theodoric, posted 08-14-2010 11:37 AM nwr has replied

  
CosmicChimp
Member
Posts: 311
From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland
Joined: 06-15-2007


Message 8 of 25 (574101)
08-14-2010 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theodoric
08-13-2010 7:00 PM


You are talking ultimately about a change in the environment, insofar as medicine and technology alter our habitat. Subsequent changes in the gene pool (allele frequencies) would be I think expected. That is the very definition of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theodoric, posted 08-13-2010 7:00 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-14-2010 10:10 AM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 9 of 25 (574127)
08-14-2010 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theodoric
08-13-2010 7:00 PM


In an earlier voyage Fitzroy had brought back to London several natives from Tierra del Fuego where they were exhibited for the king and queen, and on the famous voyage of the Beagle with Darwin he returned three of the natives to their homeland. Darwin had ample opportunity to observe them, and this excerpt is from Janet Browne's biography:
Janet Browne writes:
The most striking physical difference was that Jemmy and York had remarkably good eyesight, a point that interested Darwin personally as well as biologically, because he was accustomed to think of his own eyesight as exceptionally strong: those "telescopes you call eyes," Erasmus used to say. Only five or six of the crew could see as far or further than Darwin. But the male Fuegians' sight was much superior, a fact they turned to their advantage. "They were quite conscious of this power; and Jemmy, when he had any little quarrel with the officer on the watch, would say, 'Me see ship, me no tell.'"
It makes sense that human populations living in environments where good eyesight was a true advantage would exhibit good eyesight more often than European populations of the period. I wonder if this has ever been properly studied.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theodoric, posted 08-13-2010 7:00 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 10 of 25 (574145)
08-14-2010 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by CosmicChimp
08-14-2010 12:51 AM


I guess that while it's possible that our natural eyesight may be getting worse as glasses and surgery can easily correct many imperfections and thereby cancel out any major disadvantage, very soon genetic engineering could help eliminate "bad eyesight" genes from the gene pool, just as it could eliminate other genetic problems - and give your dolphins a smart pair of hands!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by CosmicChimp, posted 08-14-2010 12:51 AM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Theodoric, posted 08-14-2010 11:38 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 11 of 25 (574155)
08-14-2010 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by nwr
08-13-2010 11:45 PM


Not sure I agree
Do you not think that people with really bad eyesight might not have lived to adulthood as often as people with bad eyesight? In primitive cultures bad eyesight would be an extreme detriment to survival. Even in a more modern age the poor sighted would be more prone to accidents and being in lethal situations I would think, due to not being able to see well enough to perceive the danger. Even after the invention of eyeglasses I would think poor eyesight would have still greatly influenced the survivability of the poor sighted among the poor classes.
I could be totally wrong on this. Gut instinct and "common" sense tends to skew viewpoints a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 08-13-2010 11:45 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by nwr, posted 08-14-2010 12:04 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 12 of 25 (574156)
08-14-2010 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
08-14-2010 10:10 AM


good points, but...
Not what I am pondering in the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 08-14-2010 10:10 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 08-14-2010 11:51 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 25 (574160)
08-14-2010 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Theodoric
08-14-2010 11:38 AM


Re: good points, but...
Is all bad eyesight genetic?
I didn't need to wear glasses until I was in my later 30s, long after I had entered the period where I could reproduce and pass on any genes.
Remember, it is only genes that that effect the likelihood of reproducing that are a big issue.
In addition, in a cooperative society many eyesight defects can also be an advantage. Those who are near sighted may well be better at detailed tasks that require close vision. Others who are far sighted may be better as lookouts and perhaps hunters.
Even long ago it seems that most eyesight issues would have been relatively neutral as far as evolution was concerned. Perhaps today we can compensate and so make life quality better over a longer period but I don't see how we are passing along many bad eyesight genes that would not have gotten passed on in the past as well.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Theodoric, posted 08-14-2010 11:38 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2010 4:18 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 14 of 25 (574164)
08-14-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Theodoric
08-14-2010 11:37 AM


Re: Not sure I agree
Theodoric writes:
Do you not think that people with really bad eyesight might not have lived to adulthood as often as people with bad eyesight?
I didn't need any glasses until around age 16. And even then, they were not very strong and only important for reading the blackboard from the back of the classroom. I don't think it would have been a particular disadvantage in primitive cultures.
I now have pretty thick glasses. But I always wonder how much of that is because I spent a lot of time reading, and perhaps growth within the eye was adapting my eyes for close up work such as would not be needed for primitive cultures.
It's my impression that the eyes are somewhat adaptive, and adapt to the way we use them. People in primitive cultures would use them differently. I think it hasty to assume that vision problems we see in our society have any relevance to what happens in primitive societies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Theodoric, posted 08-14-2010 11:37 AM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 08-14-2010 3:19 PM nwr has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 15 of 25 (574195)
08-14-2010 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by nwr
08-14-2010 12:04 PM


Re: Not sure I agree
Making sure I understand...
nwr writes:
I didn't need any glasses until around age 16. And even then, they were not very strong and only important for reading the blackboard from the back of the classroom.
So you were slightly nearsighted by age 16?
I now have pretty thick glasses. But I always wonder how much of that is because I spent a lot of time reading, and perhaps growth within the eye was adapting my eyes for close up work such as would not be needed for primitive cultures.
And you became more nearsighted as you grew older?
If I understood you properly, then your experience is very atypical. Most people become more farsighted with age. As we age nearly unavoidable physiological changes occur in the eye that cause longer and longer focal lengths.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by nwr, posted 08-14-2010 12:04 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Buzsaw, posted 08-14-2010 4:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 18 by nwr, posted 08-14-2010 5:54 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024