/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2911332]

Question for evolutionary theorists and their kin.

I posted the masturbating question a few days ago, "Why do we masturbate"

The most convincing hypothesis was evolutionary baggage, but chemical by-products and side consequences of the importance of sex were also mentioned.

My new question:

Why don't we blink sequentially? Simultaneous blinking lasts about 50 milliseconds, which is 5% of your waking life. 5% of the time you are walking around with your eyes close. In 50 milliseconds a spear could probably travel 1-3 meters. One eye always open would certainly garner selective advantages.

Now the answer to any "why don't we have this or this trait" is contingent on the nature of mutations. If the mutation never occurred, natural selection has nothing to work with.

But what if it goes deeper than that? What if simultaneous blinking is deeply routed in development, and "baggage" picked up by descending from the bilaterally symmetrical vertebrates of our ancestry. Or maybe its an incite into embryological systems?

Certainly we have the ability to wink. We can willfully control the movements of one eye, and in turn wink sequentially. Though the impulse of blinking retains its synchronicity.

[Anonymous No.2911353]

thats the dumbest question ive ever read

[Anonymous No.2911370]

[Anonymous No.2911374]

>One eye always open would certainly garner selective advantages
The advantage wouldn't be significant. That 50 milliseconds is more or less imperceptible, and even if it were it hardly makes a big difference. It seems big if you add it up, but then so do most things. Furthermore, while a really fast moving object like a spear may travel a sizable distance in that amount of time, so what? Such objects haven't really been around for very long from an evolutionary point of view and even if they had been there's hardly a selective advantage to being able to keep better track of the thing that kills you (you're not going to dodge a fast moving projectile).

>What if simultaneous blinking is deeply routed in development, and "baggage" picked up by descending from the bilaterally symmetrical vertebrates of our ancestry

If it were really a big deal there are ways around bilateral symmetry. Organisms typically don't evolve down that path because there's rarely ever a point, but occasionally you find hipster species like the crab in my pic who decided that being symmetrical was just too mainstream.

[Anonymous No.2911379]

>>2911353
Really... in all the time you've been on /sci/, THIS is the dumbest question you've ever heard!?

>my fucking face when

[Anonymous No.2911387]

Because then people would go around winking, and others would falsely perceive the wink as something inappropriate or unsavory. The effect on society would be disastrous.

[Anonymous No.2911391]

>Why don't we blink sequentially?
Speak for yourself caveman.

[Anonymous No.2911393]

>>2911387

Lawl

[Anonymous No.2911397]

>>2911379
give him a break he only got here three minutes ago

[Anonymous No.2911405]

>>2911387
Well if we all winked like that all the time then the concept of conveying 'winking' wouldn't fucking exist in the first place.

[Anonymous No.2911406]

>>2911374
doesn't have to be a spear, was just trying to elucidate the question by way of human interactive scenarios

lets say the equivalent of a modern tsetse fly is flying at you 250,000 years ago, i would think having that 50 milliseconds to assess the situation would incur an advantage, at least on average for the whole population

and thusly because that 50 milliseconds is preserved due to the new found trait, the brain would have found ways (during ontogeny as well as over evolutionary time) to ensure such a trait is utilized to some degree

[Anonymous No.2911409]

>>2911387

[Anonymous No.2911412]

>>2911406
using nice words make you sound dumber

[Anonymous No.2911413]

>>2911387
>>2911405

brilliant sequence of discourse, had no idea /sci/ possessed so much wit, saving for later

thanks guys

[Anonymous No.2911417]

>>2911414
>>2911409
The Sein mind.

[Anonymous No.2911414]

>>2911387
"It's just a piece of pulp."

[Anonymous No.2911433]

>>2911332
You have to realize that evolution does not produce the best possible result, it produces the bare minimum necessary. We blink with both eyes at the same time simply because that's good enough to survive.

Another way to say it is: not enough people have died from not being able to blink their eyes separately for it to make a change in the gene pool.

[Anonymous No.2911438]

>>2911433
>not enough people have died from not being able to blink their eyes separately for it to make a change in the gene pool

lol mfw lamarckfag

[Anonymous No.2911440]

Also having both eyes open lets us see depth you dufus

[Anonymous No.2911450]

>>2911440
>implying not blinking simultaneously means walking around 95% of time with one eye open

dufus

[Anonymous No.2911451]

>>2911406
What part of "50 milliseconds is imperceptible" do you not fucking understand? What part of "not much could even happen in that time period" do you not understand?

And before you answer "evolution would find a way" keep in mind that that the rate of perception is capped by the speed of action potentials (ie the speed at which an electrical impulse can travel) so no, evolution could not find a way because it's physically impossible.

[Anonymous No.2911460]

I am now embarking on a quest to train myself to blink sequentially.

I'll let you know in a week.

[Anonymous No.2911465]

>>2911450

i thought that 5% of our time would be segnificant enough to affect our evolution you idiot

[Anonymous No.2911473]

>>2911465
>5% of our time
>split up over our lifetime
>significant
Nope.

[Anonymous No.2911475]

>Now the answer to any "why don't we have this or this trait" is contingent on the nature of mutations. If the mutation never occurred, natural selection has nothing to work with.

yes

>But what if it goes deeper than that?

no

[Anonymous No.2911477]

>>2911465
It doesn't make any sense to consider it in the grand scheme of things though.

[Anonymous No.2911481]

>>2911473

I was trying to make that point

[Anonymous No.2911494]

probably could apply game theory to this, to at least explain why a sequential blinker would not invade a population of simultaneous blinkers

lets assume sequential blinking last 50 milliseconds per eye = 100 milliseconds

simultaneous blinking = 50 milliseconds

now we can assess the possible cost

basically, is it more costly to walk around with both eyes closed 5% of time, or one eye closed 10% of the time

one has to take into consideration the loss that is entailed with 1 eye vs 2 eyes opened, and one eye vs 2 eyes closed

j = one eye value
k = two eye value
C = Cost

if 0.9(j - C) < 0.95(k - C), then sequential blinkers will not invade a population of simultaneous blinkers

[Anonymous No.2911524]

>>2911451
your supposed ire is merely an excuse to use this phrase
>rate of perception is capped by the speed of action potentials

which is scarcely even syntactically correct, and whatever "action potentials" are, they are of no relevance here

at no point did i imply blinking sequentially would be faster or slower than the 50 milliseconds it currently takes, so neuronal constraints are of no concern

[Anonymous No.2911560]

Is sequential blinking really worth having? Instead of one action you have two, more energy and brainpower spent with no significant benefit.

Really, I think eye-lidded life had more important things to worry about than the order in which their eyes blinked.