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
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”.
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
If sideways eyes are “costly” compared to forward facing eyes, then that would technically be a push for forward facing.
Or goats just find forward facing eyes to be sexier.
I know I do
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”.
I mean you can do a smoldering sexy look at someone if your eyes face sideways. Makes total sense.
Depth perception.
Derception.
Derpception
I’ve always wondered if there was a term for evolutionary changes that weren’t needed!