Can anyone help with some information to hopefully settle a bet.
I need to prove or disprove that the quality of eyesight (acuity) has
collectively declined since the invention of glasses. i.e. has natural
selection been given a level playing field therefore leaving no
discernable selective disadvantage for any inherited trait for
defective eyesight to decrease through the gene pool.
Any pointers to sites giving health data would be appreciated as well
as personal comments and observations.
thank you,
adam.
In article <5ec23m$…@news.enterprise.net>, Adam Whaley
<byr…@enterprise.net> writes
>Can anyone help with some information to hopefully settle a bet.
>I need to prove or disprove that the quality of eyesight (acuity) has
>collectively declined since the invention of glasses. i.e. has natural
>selection been given a level playing field therefore leaving no
>discernable selective disadvantage for any inherited trait for
>defective eyesight to decrease through the gene pool.
>Any pointers to sites giving health data would be appreciated as well
>as personal comments and observations.
>thank you,
>adam.
Natural selection can be ignored, the time frame is too narrow and there
is no selective disadvantage.
I think you will need to concentrate on myopia , long sightedness has
probably always been present with old age and other less common defects
also always present.
I think the data (if there is any) will show that increases appeared
when man started to read, sew, etc. A further jump recently with office
work and computer usage. The use of glasses will not have created
myopia, just worsened the effects of it in each individual.
Really what would be usefull is the percentage of the population with
myopia, and also percentages for each degree of myopia. If this were
cross referenced to occupation, hobbies, geneology, etc even better.
–
Stephen Riley
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
In article <5ec23m$…@news.enterprise.net>, Adam Whaley <Adam> wrote:
>Can anyone help with some information to hopefully settle a bet.
>I need to prove or disprove that the quality of eyesight (acuity) has
>collectively declined since the invention of glasses. i.e. has natural
>selection been given a level playing field therefore leaving no
>discernable selective disadvantage for any inherited trait for
>defective eyesight to decrease through the gene pool.
>Any pointers to sites giving health data would be appreciated as well
>as personal comments and observations.
>thank you,
>adam.
This is something one could most certainly argue, I doubt that it could
ever be proven.
But you certainly have my vote.
—
Brent E. Shelley | My reality check bounced.
Optometry Student | Thank God for overdraft protection.
IU School of Optometry |
Stephen Riley wrote:
> In article <5ec23m$…@news.enterprise.net>, Adam Whaley
> <byr…@enterprise.net> writes
> >Can anyone help with some information to hopefully settle a bet.
> >I need to prove or disprove that the quality of eyesight (acuity) has
> >collectively declined since the invention of glasses. i.e. has natural
> >selection been given a level playing field therefore leaving no
> >discernable selective disadvantage for any inherited trait for
> >defective eyesight to decrease through the gene pool.
> Natural selection can be ignored, the time frame is too narrow
i don’t know about this point, it seems that the
squirrels on the highway have gotten
better at dodging cars in a significant way
just in the last 20 years.
–
_______________________________________________________________________
| Curt Finch Phoenix Net-Tek LLC c…@pnk.com 512-795-0709 |
———————————————————————–
>i don’t know about this point, it seems that the
>squirrels on the highway have gotten
>better at dodging cars in a significant way
>just in the last 20 years.
That’s because there is a selective disadvantage in being run over i.e.
getting run over and squashed can ruin your sex life.
—
Stephen Riley
byr…@enterprise.net (Adam Whaley) wrote:
>Can anyone help with some information to hopefully settle a bet.
>I need to prove or disprove that the quality of eyesight (acuity) has
>collectively declined since the invention of glasses. i.e. has natural
>selection been given a level playing field therefore leaving no
>discernable selective disadvantage for any inherited trait for
>defective eyesight to decrease through the gene pool.
……………
What’s the amount of the bet, what would be my cut, and who is the
referee that is to decide which side of the bet, or whether anything
else, has been proved? What are the rules on this playing field
(whether it’s level or not)? Can we kill the pre-reproductive blind
to see if eyesight improves generally?
Ray
Curt Finch <c…@pnk.com> wrote:
>Stephen Riley wrote:
>> In article <5ec23m$…@news.enterprise.net>, Adam Whaley
>> <byr…@enterprise.net> writes
………………..
>> Natural selection can be ignored, the time frame is too narrow
>i don’t know about this point, it seems that the
>squirrels on the highway have gotten
>better at dodging cars in a significant way
>just in the last 20 years.
Well, I think he was only referring to the species Homo sapiens.
I’m not sure about the squirrels on the highway, but the ones in the
cities do pretty well these days, at least after they get their
morning latte.
I always wondered why squirrels were so nearsighted, but I guess when
you have a nut in your paws, chewing on it, and your arms (front
legs?) aren’t any longer than a squirrel’s, and you wanta know before
you take a bite whether there’s some ugly, bitter critter there
chewin’ on it already, you might wanta see kinda up close-like. (Of
course, they could all be reincarnations of human myopes who had
high-diopter negative lenses dumped on them by optometrists. ;-> )
Ray