I’ve always wondered if there was a term for evolutionary changes that weren’t needed!
Comment on >:)>
abies_exarchia@lemm.ee 1 day agoNot 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
BleatingZombie@lemmy.world 1 day 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.
swab148@lemm.ee 1 day ago
I know I do
AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
<Gives you the side eye>
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”.
jol@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
I mean you can do a smoldering sexy look at someone if your eyes face sideways. Makes total sense.
stephen01king@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Depth perception.
kurwa@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Derception.
OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
Derpception