That last bit could be used to support Murch's argument, if the articles I've seen on HN about ergonomic chairs and sitting versus standing are any indication.
This argument is missing the point. True, evolution didn't prepare us to drive cars, however it did prepare us to spend long periods of time focusing on objects at fixed distances and then changing our focus on the ~hundreds of milliseconds timescale. It also evolved us to allow independent movement of limbs during this process, essentially what driving a car is. This same argument could be applied to typing at a computer (without the need to change focus very quickly).
I think the point is that cinema in 3D forces us to change the location of our focus very rapidly (much faster than hundreds of milliseconds) for long periods of time, something that we are not equipped to do. For a physical activity like sitting our muscles are malleable enough to adjust to a sedate lifestyle, but to increase the speed and duration of rapid eye focusing would most likely require rewiring the brain. Perhaps if we were raised in this pseudo-3D realm our brain could adjust, but adults brains aren't wired to change like our muscles are.
Like any new tech, makers want to convince us this tech is the way to go. So study more, and give us the old school alternatives.
I saw Tron in 3D and suffered very mild side effects -- facial tension and a headache that went away after a few glasses of wine. The 3D effects weren't enough to make even those mild side effects worth it. I'm not even sure the 3D effects were a net plus for the experience without considering the side effects. Add a 40% premium on the ticket price, and it was a great deal for the theater and a lousy deal for me.
Until the technology changes fundamentally, I'm starting to think 3D movies are like heroin: we'll see a periodic resurgence and decline as the lessons fade away with one generation and are relearned by the next.
Where I watched Green Hornet (very funny movie if you don't expect to see a Coen brothers film, I think) the glasses were cheap plastic and you could take them home. I actually have two sets, maybe I'll give it a try :D
I'm sure the same was said about television, or travelling more than 30 miles per hour.
IOW, 3D movies induce eyesore and headaches, and there are plenty of people who experience that, myself included. could that hurt developing eyesight? no idea, but i can imagine why it could.
But more importantly, the 600 million years of evolution argument doesn't hold the water he is putting in it. 600 million years of evolution did not prepare humans for traveling at 60 mph (much less controlling two tons of steel and insuring the safety of their children, while doing so), nor did it prepare humans for sitting in front of a bright light pecking at keyboards for hours and hours on end.
Focusing on one point while converging on another may require practice, but so does operating an RC car. But the fact that a broad swath of the population can readily do it the very first time, speaks against it.
Essentially, the case against 3d movies is an appeal to authority, and the article is really a rejection of the art form (3d is the rap music which is replacing their beloved rock and roll). That's not to say that there isn't a lot of schlock 3d - who really expected Green Hornet to be great cinema? - only that there is nothing inherently wrong with the medium.