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 2 days agoProbably, although there would still need to be some evolutionary pressure for forward facing eyes… I wonder what it is.
abies_exarchia@lemm.ee 2 days ago
kurwa@lemmy.world 1 day 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 day ago
Or goats just find forward facing eyes to be sexier.
Bear_pile@lemm.ee 1 day 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 day ago
I’ve always wondered if there was a term for evolutionary changes that weren’t needed!
wischi@programming.dev 1 day 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 2 days ago
maybe living in caves?
AngrySquirrel@lemm.ee 2 days 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 .