Not necessarily, with “genetic drift” random phenotypic changes can happen that have a neutral effect on fitness. So if they don’t need side-facing eyes, then this can just happen randomly. Especially if the sideways eyes are in some way “costly” to maintain
Comment on >:)>
fristislurper@feddit.nl 1 week agoProbably, although there would still need to be some evolutionary pressure for forward facing eyes… I wonder what it is.
abies_exarchia@lemm.ee 1 week ago
kurwa@lemmy.world 1 week ago
If sideways eyes are “costly” compared to forward facing eyes, then that would technically be a push for forward facing.
jol@discuss.tchncs.de 1 week ago
Or goats just find forward facing eyes to be sexier.
Bear_pile@lemm.ee 1 week ago
There was an interesting study done with zebra finches. In it they glued fake mohawkes on males and found that females selected them over unaltered males, even though it didn’t naturally occur in the species. So there is some precedence for the possibility that the forward facing eyes were simply “sexier”.
BleatingZombie@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I’ve always wondered if there was a term for evolutionary changes that weren’t needed!
wischi@programming.dev 1 week ago
I’m not sure for that specific case, but in the general case there doesn’t need to be evolutionary pressure for change. If there is no pressure one way or the other random mutations can (and will over time) cause change without environmental reason (genetic drift).
Num10ck@lemmy.world 1 week ago
maybe living in caves?
AngrySquirrel@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Depth perception in advantageous. It is even beneficial for island goat activities.
With the absence of natural predators, the disadvantages of the narrow field of view are mostly outweighed by the advantages of depth perception .