[bglazer]

That's a lovely theory, if quite imprecise in terms of the actual biology of eye development. The actually important part of science (the part that requires a lot of expertise and judgement) is figuring out how to make that an actually testable hypothesis and then whether or not its true.

[moralestapia]

>if quite imprecise in terms of the actual biology of eye development

Explain how, please.

[bglazer]

> a certain age range your eyes determine they've grown to the correct size based on how well they focus

A certain age -> which one? Why?

your eyes determine -> How? What molecular growth signaling pathways are involved? How do they integrate with your brain's visual processing centers and how does that relate to "how well [your eyes] focus". Is there a biomechanical signal from muscle stress or eye curvature?

How would you test this? You'd have to change this process somehow to show that the effect is real, but you obviously can't do that with humans, so you'd probably have to use mice, but their eyes are different, but how so?

Without any of this information, it's a nice "just-so" story about cavemen looking at the horizon, but not much more than that.

[direwolf20]

You don't need to know the molecular growth pathways to test a biological hypothesis. We don't know which molecular pathways cause lung cancer when you smoke.

[bglazer]

We absolutely do know about the molecular pathways that cause smoking induced lung cancer. It’s TP53 and RB1 mutations (among many others). There are probably more than a hundred thousand published papers about precisely this question