Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Rajvagli t1_j52624c wrote

Reply to comment by ramriot in Ancient humans and their early depictions of the universe: “It is no exaggeration to say that astronomy has existed as an exact science for more than five millennia,” writes the late science historian John North. by clayt6

Agreed, natural selection would have them eliminated until “recently.”

7

Dmeechropher t1_j53j41b wrote

If this were the case, then all modern humans would have what you call "good eyesight". Predation hasn't been an issue for humans for only a few thousand years, which is not generally enough for a trait like bad eyesight to diffuse into society if it were previously under selective pressure.

For instance, modern (and honestly eve ancient) humans have no need for the ability to wiggle their ears, but most people have the muscle and can be taught to use it. Non-human ancestors used this muscle to detect predators more accurately.

Additionally: strong acuity distance vision isn't what helps spot predators. Hearing, motion sensitivity, and color vision are way more effective in this regard. In fact, I'd wager that the invention of the bow actually increased the visual acuity of the human population, since ability to use a bow and thrown spear at long ranges was a heavily favorable trait for tens of thousands of years, and, critically, during the ice age, when natural selection was particularly heavy.

8

Rajvagli t1_j55t7py wrote

But those that didn’t have an increase visual acuity would have been worse off than those that did right? Potentially leading to their genetic lines ending.

Asking to learn.

1

Dmeechropher t1_j56g9nl wrote

Maybe, hard to say. Speculating about evolution which didn't happen is really hard because evolution is an emergent process that doesn't happen for single traits in a vacuum.

What we can do is take a look at animals with high visual acuity who are otherwise unrelated. Birds, Cats, and (weirdly) Tarsiers are probably the acuity standouts in nature, and they are all predators. Prey with the best vision don't tend to have remarkable acuity, instead, they have improved field of view (goats, rabbits, etc). So it seems like "bad vision= you're lunch" doesn't really apply that well in examples we can see.

1

Kitchen_Music1302 t1_j53g10v wrote

I disagree. The bad eyesight the average person has now wouldn't of been such a hindrance they couldn't forage

5

ammonium_bot t1_j54i7wp wrote

> now wouldn't of been

Did you mean to say "wouldn't have"?
Explanation: You probably meant to say could've/should've/would've which sounds like 'of' but is actually short for 'have'.
Total mistakes found: 745
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github
^^Patreon

1

Rajvagli t1_j55tjtx wrote

I’m not so sure about that, I had -4 vision and couldn’t see anything in focus farther than a foot away. Are you saying that I wouldn’t have more difficulty gathering and foraging than someone with better vision?

1

Kitchen_Music1302 t1_j55uu78 wrote

I'm sure you would I just wouldn't think to the degree that you get kicked out of a village of die of starvation. If that is true though, there were a lot of roles for people to have in a village that didn't require good vision. Fishing, helping with child rearing or gathering wood for example

1

Rajvagli t1_j55xz8w wrote

Fair point, I guess I’m not familiar with family/tribal roles enough to know one way or another. To me, poor eyesight is a negative trait, and I would expect back then, it would be harder to find a mate with such a weakness. Therefor, limiting the genetic pool of that individual.

2