|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Do glasses lead to bad eyesight evolving? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
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: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Theodoric writes:
I don't think there is much evidence for that.Is the human race getting progressively worse in eyesight? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CosmicChimp Member Posts: 311 From: Muenchen Bayern Deutschland Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4942 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
Not what I am pondering in the OP.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Theodoric 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. I don't think it would have been a particular disadvantage in primitive cultures.Do you not think that people with really bad eyesight might not have lived to adulthood as often as people with bad eyesight? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024