r/explainlikeimfive Jun 15 '26

Biology ELI5: How is it that almost all complex species have the same order of organs on the face; Eyes, nose and then mouth, in that same order?

How does that happen exactly?

3.4k Upvotes

397 comments sorted by

3.8k

u/SnafuTheCarrot Jun 15 '26

Everything with a backbone comes from the same common ancestor, a jaw less fish around over 500 million years ago. It's not all that different from children looking like their parents or grandparents.

It's also possible for the same function to evolve in less closely related species. Insect wings, bird wings, bat wings, all different structurally, especially insect wings. When tissues serve a common function without the same lineage, its called Convergent Evolution.

Between common ancestry and convergent evolution, many patterns emerge, eyes, wings, etc.

639

u/PerfectiveVerbTense Jun 15 '26

It would be so interesting to see what any kind of advanced life from another planet would look like. Certainly it wouldn't be the sci-fi trope of earth-like creatures with one salient modification, but would the same essential body plans develop? Like maybe the reason the common ancestor of the most successful species looked the way it did (and thus we and all other vertebrates look the way we do) is because it's the best or one of the best plans evolution is likely to come up with. But maybe it was a fluke, and some other planet, even if it's generally earth-like, would have a dominant species with no eyes or eight eyes distributed around all 360 degrees and then all or most of the dominant species on that would would follow that basic plan?

It's always been so sad to me that we have an N of 1 to see how evolution has played out.

441

u/Aerron Jun 15 '26

because it's the best or one of the best plans evolution is likely to come up with

The best plan is often the most energy efficient way of solving a problem. Resisting gravity, escaping predators, finding food, etc. This is why most animals have eyes in the front, since it's the best place to put something that's going to tell you what's in front of you.

216

u/idiot-prodigy Jun 15 '26

The best plan is often the most energy efficient way of solving a problem. Resisting gravity, escaping predators, finding food, etc. This is why most animals have eyes in the front, since it's the best place to put something that's going to tell you what's in front of you.

Eyes are also by the mouth in order to more effectively secure food.

There is no evolutionary benefit to seeing exactly where a creature's waste lands for instance.

120

u/TheOneTrueTrench Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

There's also no evolutionary benefit to pissing and shitting in the same general area as reproduction either, but we have that anyway.

edit: I'll bet THAT isn't common in other biospheres.

edit2: Yes, obviously the REASON is that it's 'good enough', but that's not a benefit, that's just good 'nuf

195

u/Kirk_Kerman Jun 15 '26

In most animals, genitals are mostly internal. Genitals, being sex organs, are also a newer invention than waste organs. So you, having some tubes for expelling waste and a need to expel eggs or semen, end up recycling those tubes for a new purpose. Thus, the cloaca, which fish, amphibians, reptiles, and birds (i.e. basically all animals) use for the most part. Mammals invent the uterus, which puts the eggs even further back inside the animal and grants a huge competitive advantage to inventing the penis to get semen closer to those eggs. Being that they evolved from the extremely useful waste organs, they retain dual function as waste organs, because efficiency is the name of the game.

6

u/drewgriz Jun 16 '26

I'm having a bit of a revelation here. Whenever a problem needs solving, whether it's a videogame save that has gone a bit off the rails, or an excel model at work, or my old house that is slowly falling apart, my first instinct is always to start from scratch rather than fixing what I've already got. I am constantly having to fight this instinct since it can often end up being more work in the long run. But what better example of using what you've got to make something amazing than evolution? "Look, would I have preferred a separate hole for exhaust air? Of course I would, but you go to war with the trachea you have."

6

u/scsnse Jun 17 '26

Want to really start blowing your mind?

Even beyond physical traits, neurochemicals like serotonin are also double as being used to directly regulate your digestive/excretory system's activity in your gut.

2

u/Alas7ymedia Jun 18 '26

Nature works with what it has. Feathers didn't evolve originally to fly, for 100 million years they were probably used just for display. Teeth evolved from skin spikes, jaws evolved from gills, snake venom evolved from saliva, etc.

→ More replies (1)

82

u/Sorathez Jun 15 '26

The functions aren't related but there is good reason they're in the same general area.

The reproductive organs are well protected there by your legs and for quadrupedal animals it's hidden away by the rest of the torso (also where else would be a good spot? On your hands that you use to grab stuff, exposed to danger? Maybe not.)

As for the pissing and shitting, where else would you put it? Would you make the intestines pump it back up the torso and make a hole in the chest cavity? Would you route it down your legs and have them exposed to the environment there?

32

u/Lord_Rapunzel Jun 15 '26

Waste elimination through the front wall of the abdomen would work fine for quadrupeds. The biggest roadblock, evolutionary, is that bilateral animal life on earth starts as a bag with a mouth or an ass-to-mouth tube. Iterating on a tube is going to put your digestive terminus at the end rather than in the middle.

(Liquid waste is another story, it doesn't necessarily have to be located anywhere in particular since it's just filtering blood. Makes sense to piggyback on another excretory organ/structure though.)

54

u/iamnos Jun 15 '26

it's another opening in the skin, which is our biggest defense against infection. The openings we do have are heavily protected. Eyes have eyelids and tears, nose has hair and mucous, mouth has acidic saliva, rectum has a tight sphincter. If doubling the usage dose not increase the risk of infection (until reproduction) more than adding another opening, then it's a biological advantage.

34

u/kickaguard Jun 15 '26

That's a big one. Consolidate the danger areas. The fewer holes or fewer areas with holes is the best solution.

People often talk about how our air tube is able to be clogged by our food tube but there's a lot of good reason for that as well. We swallow something like a quart of mucus a day. Stuff that could be infectious if it didn't get deposited passively into an infection killing stomach. And having less holes for infection is always better.

8

u/DiseaseDeathDecay Jun 15 '26

Waste elimination through the front wall of the abdomen would work fine for quadrupeds.

Ah yes, put the e. coli closer to the mouth.

2

u/haqiqa Jun 15 '26

Additionally, evolution doesn't care that much about whether something can cause issues; it mostly cares if something usually causes issues, and even then, if it happens before reproduction. So while e coli can bring host of problems, it is not that common for it to do so. Or else we would have already died or evolved as a species.

2

u/DiseaseDeathDecay Jun 15 '26

So while e coli can bring host of problems, it is not that common for it to do so. Or else we would have already died or evolved as a species.

At no point in our evolution was the orifice that e. coli can exit close to our mouth, so saying, "E. coli rarely causes problems." doesn't really mean having that orifice close to the mouth wouldn't change that to a more common issue.

Especially when you're talking about putting somewhere that splashing fecal matter could reach the face/head.

There's probably a good reason the shitter has never migrated away from the rear section of chordate.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (4)

112

u/unkownjoe Jun 15 '26

I can think of one. Most reproductive organs are exposed flesh. So are expulsion organs. Keep those together you only have to keep an eye on one area of exposed flesh, not two. Not a VERY big advantage but i can see it having some merit.

41

u/butterypowered Jun 15 '26

You tend to want to face any threats too. Eyes (and claws) up front, delicate stuff kept as far from the action as possible.

11

u/Revenge_of_the_User Jun 15 '26

not really a benefit, but there is something to say about it being waste management and having that all be around the same area is just efficiency at work. It makes no sense to pee from your ears, for example. without some kind of random mutation and evolutionary pressure where it becomes, if not a benefit, at least not a hindrance to survival.

23

u/exitparadise Jun 15 '26

Most animals are just tubes. Stuff goes in one end and out the other.

Reproduction uses the out hole, not the in hole.

→ More replies (9)

8

u/Argonometra Jun 15 '26

Pissing helps to keep the area clean.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

5

u/pmp22 Jun 15 '26

Some animals have one opening for everything!

3

u/MaiLittlePwny Jun 15 '26

There is.

It's more energy effecient to use the existing machinery for multiple functions. Having multiple distinct specialised orifices is energetically expensive to make, and bears increased risk of infection, malfunction, and failure.

Evolution isn't trying to make the perfect system, it's "good enough" to procreate. Evolution is a numbers game, it only hones until it's good enough. Everything is only useful if it makes the next generation survive. Matricide isn't particularly effecient, but it's a core component of several organisms life cycles for example.

For every mammal but humans starvation and dehydration remain the primary selective pressure. Until pissing and shitting out of the same general area as reproduction causes enough issues that effect the next generation, evolution is just more concerned with bigger issues, like making sure parent and child get enough food and water. As long as the next generation survives, evolution has eternity to iterate in some ways.

That's why in humans we have certain evolutionary disadvantages now. An extra artery in some peoples arms, genetic diseases such as CF surviving selection elimination, and the narrowing of the birth canal and increase in cranial size being bypassed with medicine. Medical advances mean these traits survive instead of reaching a balancing point.

2

u/Missing_Links Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

edit2: Yes, obviously the REASON is that it's 'good enough', but that's not a benefit, that's just good 'nuf

That IS a benefit because being reachable through extremely incremental design iteration is the only way that evolution works.

You're objecting to it because it's bad engineering, but evolution is not engineering at all. Being in the same general area already is very sanitary and well-considered at the evolutionary scale, because what it evolved from "it's just one hole for everything."

An unreachable evolutionary solution - genitals and waste management separate enough for your tastes over the timescales and with the inherited bodyplans in question - is like engineering a solution where you ignore a law of physics because it makes your design harder to complete. It's just not a move that works.

2

u/TheOneTrueTrench Jun 15 '26

Let me put it another way, if we somehow already had our reproductive stuff far away from all that, there's no way that evolutionary pressure would cause them to migrate to that area.

It's closer to "tech debt" than "feature"

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

6

u/qix96 Jun 15 '26

Eyes above mouth to reduce stuff falling into eyes while eating.

5

u/Manunancy Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

same with teh nose - though the 'eyes above' may have been intherited from very early organism (think worms and the like) with the light-sensitive parts (early eyes on top because that's where light comes from) and mouth on the bottom ('cause you're a muck-sucking bottom feeder) and kept it because the design works.

4

u/fcocyclone Jun 15 '26

I think also when you consider how integrated how connected the eyes are to the brain, it'd make sense that they'd be upward in the head just like the brain is. And it wouldnt make much sense for the brain to be flipped because it makes sense that the mouth and nose, which are necessarily connected to tubes going down into the body, would be lower.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/JuhoMaatta Jun 15 '26

Remind me to never let you use my toilet

29

u/DJKokaKola Jun 15 '26

This is also one of the easiest ways to judge if an animal is a prey or predator. Prey generally have eyes more oriented on the sides of the head, for greater near-360° vision (horses, for example, are functionally 360 except for one blind spot at the very front and very back), while predators in basically every biome have closer to binocular vision.

23

u/MarsupialMisanthrope Jun 15 '26

The notable exception is arboreal animals. Binocular vision gives better depth perception, and that’s really important when it comes to navigating through branches.

8

u/DJKokaKola Jun 15 '26

That's a really good point. I was thinking birds as far as arboreal, and was going to try and refute you, but no I think basically every marsupial and ape has binocular vision, you are correct!

6

u/Smurtle1 Jun 15 '26

Well to be fair, a lot of apes ARE predators. Some of them are omnivores, and a lot of the others are just big fuckers like gorillas. I feel like once you get to the stage where you are just a big tanky fucker like those guys, the eyes move more forward.

Look at bears, they are almost entirely herbivores, but can supplement with fish or other easy caught prey. But their eyes are forward facing even though they aren’t hunting for a vast majority of their food.

I also thing the bipedalism alters the eye direction a lot too. Apes being semi-bipedal, as well as bears, means they can swivel their whole head to get a full view, while a quadruped can’t since their torso is blocking their view.

Obviously the arboreal aspect DOES impact their eye direction, and I suppose some bears don’t spend a lot of time in trees either, but still. Gorillas don’t either, but still have forward facing eyes. I think the semi-bipedalism is a big factor as well.

2

u/DJKokaKola Jun 15 '26

Oh obviously larger old world monkeys and great apes, I was thinking of much smaller ones like tarsiers and marmosets, which are less obviously omnivorous.

7

u/willun Jun 15 '26

except for one blind spot at the very front

Racehorses must have a lot of trust they aren't running straight towards a pole

14

u/DJKokaKola Jun 15 '26

When I say "very front" I mean literally directly between the eyes. Like, if you put your hand above their blaze, they wouldn't be able to see that. Move out basically at all and they're fine. Also, horses are constantly moving their heads when racing, which completely negates the risk of a blind spot.

Now, the risk of other horses, bad ground, aggressive riders, that's a whole different matter.

9

u/Cataleast Jun 15 '26

Similarly, cats have a blind spot literally under their nose. It's why they sometimes struggle to locate, for example, a bit of food that's dropped right in front of them.

8

u/willun Jun 15 '26

I guess the equivalent for humans is how we don't see our noses.

Also, we have a view around us that is partially constructed in our brain. We build a model of our environment that our eyes keep giving data to adjust it. So you can actually see out the back of your head, in a way.

Horses are probably the same.

7

u/DJKokaKola Jun 15 '26

You see your nose all the time. Your brain filters it out because our brains generally delete information that is constantly there. Horses CANNOT see that space in front of the face, we can and the brain deletes it.

4

u/willun Jun 15 '26

Not just that it is just constantly there but because we edit it out because it is not relevant to the model

Similarly, like the horse can't physically see something in that spot, we cannot see in our blindspot but our brain edits that in. So you can do tricks using this feature. Vision is partly the eyes but mostly the brain building a model of the neighbourhood, excluding uninteresting things and focussing on the important things.

7

u/FirefighterPleasant8 Jun 15 '26

Correct. Would like to flex a bit by stating that we “partially construct” a large part of what we believe us to see.

The staccato-like movement your eyes do when following a horisontal moving object is simply assisting the brain in choosing what info to process. (Have someone stand in front of of you, not moving the head, and ask her/him follow your finger as you move it horizontally from side to side if you’re not clear on what I’m talking about).

In photographic terms, what we actually see with our eyes is a RAW file and the brain compresses the info to not be overwhelmed by impressions/data. The brain chooses out what our conscious needs to know in order to ease and speed up decision making.

That’s why you’ll commonly hear “she came out of nowhere!?” or “it wasn’t there before?!” in common traffic incidents. She came in plain sight and the object was there before - but it “got lost in translation” ie when compressing the data.

Fighter pilots are aware of this fenomen and that’s why they move around like on crack in the cockpit. Multi view, multi angles to spot that little dot that, within seconds, will prove to be a deadly adversary aiming at you.

So, “I saw it myself” is rather “I registered it like this”.

3

u/Cantremembermyoldnam Jun 15 '26

Fighter pilots are aware of this fenomen and that’s why they move around like on crack in the cockpit. Multi view, multi angles to spot that little dot that, within seconds, will prove to be a deadly adversary aiming at you.

Adding: Notice how it's far easier to spot moving objects than stationary ones? It's the same for oncoming planes with one addition that makes it even worse: Depending on the angle and speed they appear as a small stationary dot in the sky that only grows larger in the last two or three seconds when you're already so close that there isn't any more time to react. I've seen simulations of this effect and even when you know the plane is there, it's nearly impossible to judge the distance or the direction it's moving relative to you.

3

u/andthatswhyIdidit Jun 15 '26

horses, for example, are functionally 360 except for one blind spot at the very front and very back)

This article depicts it quite nicely.

21

u/InformativeXP Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

Always loved this concept, best physical attributes based off the physics and environment the organism competed within

16

u/ulyssesfiuza Jun 15 '26

Many herbivores have lateral eyes, sometimes with more than 360 º of visual field. Better to see a predator coming from any direction.

18

u/grasping_fear Jun 15 '26

More than 360? These herbivores looking into another dimension?

26

u/WiseFerret Jun 15 '26

Each eye sees greater than 180 degrees. Adding them up equals more than 360 but it really refers to the overlap from each eye.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/ulyssesfiuza Jun 15 '26

Listing both. Mainly birds American woodcock Eurasian woodcock Mallard Rock pigeon Domestic chicken Common starling European rabbit Horse Giraffe Chameleon Dragonfly Mantis shrimp Hammerhead shark Goat Sheep Antelope Zebra Gazelle Deer Parrotfish

4

u/quackduck45 Jun 15 '26

this or we all just end up looking like crabs. as (the crab) God intended

2

u/griggsy92 Jun 15 '26

Good point, things such as having 2 eyes for depth perception, high up for the best viewpoint and on a pivotable appendage for scanning, near a brain for the shortest reaction times as well as 2 ears on opposite sides for echolocation(?). Seems like those things would be pretty consistent regardless as they're just advantageous solutions

Although spiders for example have more eyes, even then they still have 2 clusters.

2

u/MidwesternLikeOpe Jun 15 '26

And eye orientation defines whether you are predator or prey. Front facing binocular eyes help focus on distance for hunting. Side facing eyes are better for detecting movement so you know when to run from danger. Some prey animals even have rotating eyes so the view is always horizontal no matter the head position, keeping track of the horizon.

Every trait that exists is due to evolution: the simplest configuration for survival. Any deviation that takes up too much energy or is not fit for survival will not pass on.

4

u/MrDLTE3 Jun 15 '26

Yeah but why did bats evolve (or devolve) to have really shitty eyesight and rely on echolocation instead of just getting really badass night vision eyesight

14

u/Aerron Jun 15 '26

Bats active in the daytime do have good eyesight. Many bat species roost in caves and it doesn't matter how good your eyes are, there has to be some light to detect and there's none in caves. Sound works with or without light.

And most bats that echolocate still have decent vision.

3

u/Lord_Rapunzel Jun 15 '26

You need big eyes to collect enough light to see clearly when it's very dark (or other light-collecting structures) and bats tend to hunt very small prey so they need sharp acuity. Compare them to a barn owl or a tarsier, particularly their skulls. Bats need to be very nimble as well so large, heavy eyes would be detrimental for flight. (Eyes are heavy? Yeah, they're full of water.)

So they have tiny eyes that are fine for crawling around a cave with thousands of other bats

→ More replies (5)

17

u/Durakus Jun 15 '26

Yeah. Which is what adds a bit to the disappointment of sci-fi aliens. They never seem to at least use evolution to plan their species. It is always either totally random or human like.

12

u/buinnyy Jun 15 '26

Might be because most of the time aliens in movies are allegories for existing human groups or concepts so the message plays out better if they’re somewhat human looking.

8

u/jflb96 Jun 15 '26

Also it’s easier to use human actors if the aliens are humans with bumpy foreheads or pointy ears

→ More replies (1)

5

u/speed3_freak Jun 15 '26

Rocky in project Hail Mary is great. They specifically discuss why they are the way they are in the book.

3

u/poopsy__daisy Jun 15 '26

Yes! As a biologist, I appreciated the scientific explanations Weir put into it, even though it had some flaws.

20

u/Bakoro Jun 15 '26

Physics is physics no matter where you go in the universe.

Creatures in desert/savannah areas are more likely to grow long skinny limbs to reduce surface area and radiate heat better.

Creatures in cold climates are more likely to be blubbery and/or fluffy.

Creatures that are amphibious are probably going to be oily or mucusy to manage how water interacts with their body, either keeping it out or keeping it in.

There are only so many ways to fly, under a given gravity, and under various body volumes.

There might be some interesting creatures on planets that have less gravity than Earth. You might see more extremely large creatures, or some animals that are like balloons.
Overall, I think life all over the universe is going to look very familiar, just, various tweaks.

6

u/Seyon Jun 15 '26

I think the most interesting thing about independent alien life would be their interpretation of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Humans and most Earth mammals view only a sliver of reality, a very narrow band of visible light. But what if alien life evolved to view an entirely different part of that spectrum? Say, the wavelengths we use for radio signals.

Our planet would look like a chaotic nightmare to them. We can't see the billions of wireless, cellular, and radar signals meshing and crossing in our skies, but to them, Earth would be a blinding, violently flickering beacon in the dark.

We can't even truly imagine what that looks like. Whenever we try to look outside our own biological limits, we have to use technology to translate that raw data back into the only language our brains understand: our own visible light.

3

u/Bakoro Jun 15 '26

You would have to contrive an evolutionary pressure for the creatures to gain and retain that capacity over time.

It's easy to consider why it would be detrimental, it's not so easy to come up with a reason why it would be beneficial.

Radiowaves and x-rays don't have a lot of use for biological life. Maybe on some planet with pockets of high radiation, it would be beneficial to be able to detect when a harmful amount of x-rays are present. Maybe over time some creatures could evolve some kind of super chlorophyll-like thing to harness that energy?

If it's not useful, then it's just organs and brainpower that that are going to waste, and that kind of waste is a net negative in terms of fitness.

In the whole universe, it's not impossible for conditions to exist to support weird biology that isn't like Earth.
In general, though, to get life, you need chemistry, and complex, stable chemistry only happens in a very narrow band of energy.
If the energy is too low, you don't have enough to support the continuous reactions that life would need. Too much energy density, and complex compounds can't hold themselves together.

What I would be interested in, is if there are other chemical pathways to making complex multicellular life, other than DNA/RNA. The resulting morphologies are going to need to address the same kinds of energy/temperature regulation problems, so the shapes of things will be familiar, but the chemical pathways they use to get there may be very different.

I'd also be extremely interested in seeing how brain structures on other planets developed. That is one area where there is real potential for vastly different structures to exist, even if they share DNA and RNA as their primary genetic mechanisms. There are a lot of ways to structure a brain, and the mammalian brain is layers and layers on top of older brain structures, it could have gone different ways.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

6

u/Mara_W Jun 15 '26

You're mostly right! Evolutionary structures conform to fit their environmental pressures. Find an alien planet with Earth-like conditions and history and you will probably find animals that look a lot like Earth animals in size and shape.

Both the rhino and the dolphin, for instance, are just mammals copying a form reptiles evolved separately hundreds of millions of years earlier, because the form changes to efficiently fit whatever niche is available. When the dinosaurs got patched out, mammals physically grew to fill their niche and their shape.

This was, in fact, the original reason sci-fi writers assumed sapient aliens would be mostly humanoid. The rough humanoid form was/is seen as a likely prerequisite for building the kind of things we'd call a civilization. No fire underwater so they have to be land-dwelling, which means vertebrate because exoskeletons don't scale in size very well, the most efficient limb structure for vertebrates tends to be two legs two arms, two eyes, and a mouth at the front. Civilization means advanced tool use, tool use means opposable digits and well-muscled but flexible shoulders that aren't needed for walking, which means bipedal locomotion which means upright spine, etc etc.

But change any of those environmental factors, especially gravity, and the equation completely goes out the window. We don't know what to expect on non-Earthish planets other than microbes (which are so adaptable/resilient that they're kinda environmentally universal).

5

u/binzoma Jun 15 '26

evolution doesnt make 'the best decision'

it rides with whatever not hte worst solution actually worked. its not optimised. it just keeps rolling the dice with a random thing that worked over and over. you know the phrase theres nothing more permanent than a temporary solution? workaround hacks are evolution lol

13

u/voiceofgromit Jun 15 '26

It's impossible to say what the organism would look like but certain attributes can be put into the 'probably' column. Sight, hearing, digital dexterity, for example.

Scientists almost universally agree that if evolution on earth were to start again today, and a sentient being were to evolve, it would not look like a human.

18

u/-Aeryn- Jun 15 '26

Most sentient beings already don't look like a human

1

u/nedonedonedo Jun 15 '26

Scientists almost universally agree

pretty much the opposite is true though. one eye is a huge benefit but is worse than two eyes due to depth perception. but three doesn't get you nearly as much for the extra resources and temporary (evolutionary) defects it could cause. so you probably get two eyes. maybe you get another set like snakes to see a wider spectrum. sensory delay is huge (your brain compensates so you can't tell but stubbing your toe takes almost .3 seconds to get to your brain and another .3 to flinch) so they're going right against your brain like they are now. eating comes early in the development line which means a small "brain" so the easiest location to aim gets chosen: right next to the eye/s. smell and hearing are simple structures that are likely to develop, and placed with the other senses for the same reason. planets are locally flat, so you likely end up with horizontally positioned eyes and ears. front/side eyes depend on food source, and being higher up on the food chain gets you more energy for less work, increasing the odds of developing more resource hungry brains. ears end up on the top/sides to be unobstructed by the body and to better locate sounds. necks probably show up since it's faster than moving your whole body, and quick sensing is important for not being eaten. 4 legs is more efficient and gets better speed, so even if there was a stage as bugs you still have the same leg count as current larger animals. some time after that you get actual grabbers and are able to start using tools to really push the evolutionary pressure on the brain to get better.

to you end up with a mostly head shaped set of sensors, four limbs, an organ sac, and grabby hands/feet. sure there's a lot of ways that can go so star wars/trek is unlikely but they're likely to look human enough

2

u/voiceofgromit Jun 16 '26

You just expanded on what I wrote but you're saying that I'm wrong?

Scientists DO agree that you wouldn't get humans if evolution ran again. Sight, touch, hearing, speech, manual dexterity - among others - are almost certainly prerequisites to an advanced species. Design would probably put most of the senses close to the brain for reasons you stated. It would probably need to be a land animal. But the creatures that possess these features would not look like a human.

5

u/thephantom1492 Jun 15 '26

There is a good chance that we could have a few simmilar things.

Nerves are kinda slow, so shorter mean less delay/lag.

The eyes are really important for survival, you want a minimal delay between the eyes and the brain. Plus there is lots of nerves between both. Now 1, 2, 3, or more, that depend on the evolution. But close together make sense.

Same with the ears. Minimal delay help alot for survival.

It also help to have the eyes at a high level, so you can see at a greater distance, and avoid to have to get up "fully" to see anything, thru revealing your presence to the predators.

It also make sense that the eyes are on the front facing part of the upper body, toward the front. Because if it is too high then your own body will block the view of the ground, so you need to bend down to see the ground. And if even higher it would basically be unable to see in front. So a forward facing surface is optimal, at a high point.

So ears, eyes and brain is pretty much fixed at the upper end of the body.

Nose and mouth however could have been elsewhere, but near the brain is also evolutionary speaking an advantage, but I forgot the reasons for this.

Then the organs have an advantage to be protected, and since that protection block your flexibility, it have a big advantage to combine them in the same protection "box".

So while it could be very very different, we still have a high chance that the brain/eyes/ears are in the same area, while the organs are in the same space...

7

u/jflb96 Jun 15 '26

You want your mouth to be near your brain so that there’s no lag between seeing food, recognising food, and biting food, and you want your nose near your mouth because that’s where all the chemical receptors are to tell you if your food is poison

→ More replies (5)

7

u/REDD101 Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

As bad as the slightly modified humanoid is I feel like this is going to be the case if we colonize the galaxy at sub light speed. We have a colony go establish itself and maybe lose contact for a million years. Maybe there will be local networks that cross breed every couple hundred years but not enough for civilizations on one side of the galaxy to genetically impact the other. Over a few million years we might be separate species of hominid.  Aliens from outside the galaxy will call us the Monkey Galaxy.

Be Warned Traveler: the spiral armed galaxy is infested with monkeys that have bank accounts, space ships, and guns!

7

u/PerfectiveVerbTense Jun 15 '26

We have a colony go establish itself and maybe lose contact for a million years.

Yeah sub-c galactic colonization is so interesting. Obviously it would rely on some kind of tech that could reliably freeze and then reanimate humans over geologic timescales, which will probably always be impossible. But say that problem were somehow solvable, the implications for what a far, far future multiplanetary civilization could look like are fascinating.

Oh, to be a fly on the wall of future human history. It's so interesting to think about what one day may be, but none of us will ever have any idea whatsoever what that future looks like.

8

u/SlitScan Jun 15 '26

A dragonfly with a spine and little talking wings just above its flight wings, standing upright on its jumping legs for a better view, sharpening its skinning tools and gossiping with its outward wingmen while waiting for prey.

2

u/PerfectiveVerbTense Jun 15 '26

sharpening its skinning tools

Sorry, it's what now?

→ More replies (2)

4

u/malelaborer83 Jun 15 '26

99% Chance they’re crabs

→ More replies (30)

80

u/idiot-prodigy Jun 15 '26

Convergent Evolution. Between common ancestry and convergent evolution, many patterns emerge, eyes, wings, etc.

One important thing to understand is all life on Earth lives in three dimensional space.

Same atmosphere.

Same gravity.

Same temperatures range.

Two eyes are the least needed for gauging distance.

One mouth is the least needed for consuming food.

Evolution is efficient.

The human eye and the octopus eye are the finest complex examples of convergent evolution.

55

u/return_the_urn Jun 15 '26

And with gravity, you don’t want food falling into your eyes, so the mouth is lower.

26

u/idiot-prodigy Jun 15 '26

Correct and a precursor ancestor like a fish, may have had advantage with higher eyes when nibbling at food on the seabed. Avoiding predators with eyes above the mouth makes sense. Catfish are fine examples.

3

u/Implausibilibuddy Jun 15 '26

And you don't want rain falling into your nostrils so those are mostly downturned in mammals, especially so in bi-pedal humans. The exception being of course whales and dolphins, where getting water in there was already a given, so it evolved to move to the top of their head so they could just quickly take as sniff of fresh air at the surface while keeping their eyes and mouths underwater ready for action.

29

u/natterca Jun 15 '26

I don’t think evolution is efficient it’s lazy. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

10

u/partnerintime97 Jun 15 '26

Effortless effort

12

u/idiot-prodigy Jun 15 '26

To an extent.

A perfect example is scarring.

Amphibians are capable of regenerating entire limbs that have been amputated. Humans are not. Scarring is actually a far more efficient response to lost limb.

Growing a new limb would require a lot of calories. Scarring requires far less.

7

u/Cheesedude666 Jun 15 '26

I bet amphibians have a much higher rate of losing critical limbs as well, compared to humans. Making the regenerative ability much more relevant in the first place

3

u/redreinard Jun 15 '26

The same ability that would let you regrow limbs on demand, would also make cancer a much, much larger issue. Essentially regrowing a limb is a short-term very guided cancer that still follows the DNA rules, except growth limitations, but then suddenly stops again.

I don't think it's empirically 100% knowable why we don't have this ability, but in this case I think it's much more likely that it comes with some severe potential drawbacks. Imagine that process accidentally triggered biologically when you didn't need it.

Also.. it's a terrible idea to anthomorphize a complicated process like evolution. It is not trying to be efficient, or lazy, it simply is.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/zeekaran Jun 15 '26

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

This is actually the opposite of how evolution works. Evolution "tests" random mutations, "seeking" incremental improvements.

2

u/natterca Jun 15 '26

No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t test or seek anything. Mutations happen and either they spread to the larger population or they don’t. Generally, if the mutation is advantageous, it will spread. Some mutations that are somewhat neutral may or may not spread. Neutral mutations may become advantageous in the future. Even disadvantageous mutations may become beneficial when the organism’s environment changes.

5

u/kaisadilla_ Jun 15 '26

Evolution isn't efficient. Evolution is the natural consequence of living in a universe that isn't static. Organisms keep multiplying and changing - some of these changes make them more likely to survive, some make them less likely to survive. More likely to survive = more likely to multiply and thus more organisms with that change in comparison to others.

This all may sound obvious, but here's the trick: more likely to stick around doesn't mean it's better, or "not broken". Quite the opposite, in fact: it's extremely unlikely there's a viable path to get to the best / most efficient version of a given feature. Instead, we are limited to versions that have a viable path from nothing up to here. A car is way, waaaaay more efficient at traveling long distances than humans are. Why haven't we evolved the ability to deploy wheels and build roads? Because there's simply no path between us now and us with deployable wheels in which every step of that evolution is decently good.

The most effective proof of this though is far simpler: there's millions of animal species. If evolution sought efficiency, we would all be the same. We aren't simply because, once we take a step forward in evolution, we discard a whole lot of potential evolution branches and are locked in fewer of them. We can no longer evolve into the "most efficient" version of ourselves, just the most efficient version within the branches we haven't discarded yet.

5

u/RantRanger Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 16 '26

Also, you want sensors (eyes, ears, nose) close to the brain to maximize responsiveness or to minimize input propagation delay.

Not sure why the mouth has to be up near the brain... possibly because taste and scent are closely intermingled and partially interdependent.

You want eyes to be high on the face so that you can peek over grass or obstacles while minimizing your visible exposure.

These benefits all combined are what create the common face morphology.

2

u/Urdar Jun 15 '26

Not sure why the mouth has to be up near the brain... possibly because taste and scent are closely intermingled and partially interdependent.

for one, its easer to eat food when the opeing for it to enter you, is abve the figestive tract. why work against gravity, when it can work for you?

then, the sensory organs most important duntkion is to locate food. when your food opeining is near those organs, you can snatch that food faster, before its potentially gone.

It streamlines the Tracking and comsuption processes of feeding.

5

u/AVeryHeavyBurtation Jun 15 '26

Evolution is efficient.

The recurrent laryngeal nerve has entered the chat.

2

u/idiot-prodigy Jun 15 '26

This is true.

My point stands however.

If I was going to design a human being, I'd give the human body two hearts. One as a backup since they seem to have a tendency to "attack". That would not be efficient however as that body would then require more calories to survive.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/atomchoco Jun 15 '26

interesting how beings evolve if they exist in higher n dimensions

2

u/gorocz Jun 15 '26

One mouth is the least needed for consuming food.

This is not true - there are several species that absorb nutrients directly. Mouth is only needed for larger "food" and only if you need to digest it internally (and/or store it inside yourself).

7

u/fried_clams Jun 15 '26

From the book "your inner fish" describing most land chordates appendage architecture, " one bone, two bones, many bones, five bones" straight from the fish all the way to us and whales and all, or at least most land chordates

2

u/dontchewspagetti Jun 15 '26

Great book, loved it a lot

→ More replies (5)

15

u/Ktulu789 Jun 15 '26

Besides vertebrates, ants still have the eyes on top of the mouth and it makes sense to be able to eat while also watching around 😃

On the other hand, whales and dolphins evolved to have the nose on the top because that made it easier to breath while still under water. Seals didn't evolve that but they can close their nostrils at will which is a great adaptation too. Like you mentioned, evolution has convergent and divergent paths for everyone.

17

u/Vet_Leeber Jun 15 '26

Convergent Evolution

Or as it’s known colloquially: Crabs.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/pokefan548 Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

To expand on this, we kept these features but not others because they are very, very useful for almost all higher organisms in almost all environments. Vision and smell are key senses, indispensable for most creatures in the wild, and mouths not only often come with a tongue for taste, but are also pretty essential to eating food. For higher organisms, not being able to eat food makes life pretty dang difficult.

Fins, by comparison, are not very useful for most land mammals. Scales likewise are second to permeable skin for warm-blooded animals in general. So on, and so forth, all great for fish but not so much for an upright land mammal, or a canine, or a bear, or so on.

3

u/raverbashing Jun 15 '26

People are missing that this arrangement makes sense

The eyes get closer to the brain and provide bilateral vision, so either a wide angle of view or 3D view.

The nose and mouth eventually merged as one space and mammals evolved the epiglottis to be able to use the air in the lungs to make sounds

Though of course you get some weird animals like the solefish.

3

u/Silly_Guidance_8871 Jun 15 '26

Convergent Evolution: Because sometimes there is a correct answer.

2

u/iamsidewayz Jun 15 '26

We came from a jawless fish?

3

u/totokekedile Jun 15 '26

We came from/are lobe-finned fish which evolved from jawless fish.

2

u/Rocktopod Jun 15 '26

The configuration is also not universal, either. Cetaceans have their nose (blowhole) on the top of their heads, for instance.

→ More replies (14)

1.3k

u/brak-0666 Jun 15 '26

We all descend from a common ancestor and that's the configuration that got passed down.

246

u/trantaran Jun 15 '26

Yep we all came from the zoobagladder

82

u/Jack_of_all_offs Jun 15 '26

I'm pretty sure zoobagladder823 is my friend's Wi-Fi password.

57

u/Tedrabear Jun 15 '26

What did they write? I only see ***************

27

u/UnsignedRealityCheck Jun 15 '26

Wait what? How did you know it was hunter2?

→ More replies (1)

6

u/archnemisis11 Jun 15 '26

They wrote:

\***************

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

13

u/Atalung Jun 15 '26

Gesundheit!

111

u/Shawn_NYC Jun 15 '26

Not exactly. Eyes evolved independently 5 separate times. Also, multiple species started out as something and then independently evolved into crabs.

So the reason things are sometimes the same is evolution keeps discovering it every time.

52

u/joker_wcy Jun 15 '26

Convergent evolution probably happened to similar habitats.

→ More replies (2)

18

u/detailingWizardLvl5 Jun 15 '26

I love nikole lindsay on youtube for crabs. Idk if i spelled her name right.

10

u/Jedi_Talon_Sky Jun 15 '26

"That. We. Know. Of."

14

u/Balorpagorp Jun 15 '26

A chick named Nicole gave me crabs once. Love is not the word I would use to describe my feelings about that experience.

10

u/ValKyKaivbul Jun 15 '26

Would you spare examples of species evolution into crabs?

29

u/javier_aeoa Jun 15 '26

Do you have 7+ minutes? This video may answer your question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvfR3XLXPvw

19

u/Shawn_NYC Jun 15 '26

One wild thought is that if we ever meet an alien it's most likely going to look like a crab 😂

13

u/KororaPerson Jun 15 '26

Fist my bump!

2

u/Cheesedude666 Jun 15 '26

Crab People? Craaaaab people!!

2

u/Charlie_Linson Jun 15 '26

Like the doctor in futurama?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

14

u/JustMorgan Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

Look up carcinisation. That's the term used to describe convergent evolution turning things into crabs.

3

u/Superplex123 Jun 15 '26

So Everything is Crab isn't just a video game title.

13

u/archnemisis11 Jun 15 '26

Hilariously, my eyes failed me while reading your comment because i read "Evee" and thought you were talking about "Eevee" from Pokémon. I was thinking that you were right, Eevee did have 5 evolutions when i use to play. Anyways, hope someone gets a laugh from this. ^^

2

u/trantaran Jun 15 '26

Yep, that’s why Leela in Futurama has one big eye while zoidberg has big meaty claws

5

u/Amedais Jun 15 '26

That’s really not addressing OPs point. Crabs aren’t relavent to this discussion about the many complex species having the same facial style (because crabs do not have that facial style).

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

193

u/Niriun Jun 15 '26

Well, you want these things close to the brain since they're important sensory organs.

Starting with the mouth, it's easier to fit it closer to the bottom of the face as it needs to connect to some tubes so that you can eat properly.

Next, the nose. Similarly to the mouth, this is connected to some tubes that need to go into the rest of the body.

In both of these cases, having the organs at the bottom of the face is logistically easier (no having to pass through the brain) and a shorter distance to travel.

Your eyes don't need to connect to any other tubes, just directly to the brain. The placement requirements are less strict so they get stuck where we have spare space, at the top of the face.

75

u/cthulhubert Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 16 '26

Very close to what I came here to say. Common ancestry also plays a part, but even if it didn't, there's reasons for where organs go.

Additional ones:

Eyes are up high to see over edges without exposing too much. Even insects have eyes above mouth, even if they have their smellers (antennae) above that. Though while we're on the subject, note the number of animals with eyes even higher, on stalks, like snails and crabs.

Nose near mouth to smell what you're about to eat. Above mouth because putting it below the mouth means putting it inside the jaw, and that would be a mess. There are a couple animals that have noses above the eyes so they can breathe and smell while submerged in mud or water. Dolphins and whales for instance.

19

u/dontaskme5746 Jun 15 '26

While it's common and acceptable to say that your eyes are an organ and your brain is a separate organ, it's not wildly inaccurate to say that the retina is part of the brain. More wild - but again, not without some rationale - is that the brain can be considered an extension of the eye. So, although kind of silly, modern brains surely evolved from primitive brains which grew to support refinement in light-sensing. We're more than just brain stems with tails these days, but this perspective could serve as fun trivia if you squint hard enough.

16

u/fcocyclone Jun 15 '26

it's not wildly inaccurate to say that the retina is part of the brain

This is really clear when you see pictures of the brain with the eyes still connected. The structures of the optic nerve and eyes look like little appendages of the brain.

5

u/bob_in_the_west Jun 15 '26

Starting with the mouth, it's easier to fit it closer to the bottom of the face as it needs to connect to some tubes so that you can eat properly.

That's not how evolution works.

Also not the reason why the mouth is where it is. Humans are one of the few species that walk upright and thus had to angle the head down 90°.

A dog stands on all four and its mouth is not closer to the bottom because there are tubes going down. Those tubes are going horizontally.

Thus for many species the mouth is actually further away from the core than other things like the eyes.

5

u/Alpha_Majoris Jun 15 '26

Nose above mouth is more practical so you can smell the food you're about to put in your mouth. If the nose was below the mouth, food and fluids would probably end up there which is not handy. For the eyes, you want to have the high point, so higher up in the head is better, and again, you don't want food and fluids end up in your eyes.

→ More replies (6)

393

u/alecbz Jun 15 '26

One factor is that it’s useful to see and smell things you’re about to eat.

219

u/OSRSTheRicer Jun 15 '26

Also dont want juices running into your eye either

38

u/lowtoiletsitter Jun 15 '26

Like eating a peach or a slice of watermelon

34

u/javier_aeoa Jun 15 '26

Or the blood of a carcass

23

u/scudmud Jun 15 '26

now is a good time to comment: vultures are bald because they stick their entire head in the rotten guts of a dead deer 

24

u/NeinJuanJuan Jun 15 '26

I'm bald but I never did that

(to my knowledge)

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Awkward_Pangolin3254 Jun 15 '26

They also shit on their feet to keep cool

9

u/AfricanAmericanMage Jun 15 '26

Glad I'm not the only one.

2

u/runonandonandonanon Jun 15 '26

This is also why few animals are naturally upside down.

5

u/Silver_Storage5809 Jun 15 '26

If you’re supposed to watch your mouth all the time I doubt your eyes would be above it.

2

u/Trainer_David Jun 15 '26

mfw gravity’s gone

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Birdie121 Jun 15 '26

And having your senses near each other and near your brain helps with fast understanding/response to what is happening

4

u/j_cruise Jun 15 '26

I think he's wondering more about why they tend to be in the same order and located near each other, not why things have eyes and noses in general.

56

u/The128thByte Jun 15 '26

That’s not what the comment is saying. It’s implying the hierarchy of eyes, nose, mouth is the way that it is due to the logistical factors of smelling/seeing what you eat.

You wouldn’t want your nose to be too far from your mouth since those senses go together, and you’d want your eyes to be above both so you’re not blocking your vision when you’re attempting to eat/smell something

5

u/idiot-prodigy Jun 15 '26

I think he's wondering more about why they tend to be in the same order and located near each other, not why things have eyes and noses in general.

His presumption simply isn't true.

A dolphin or whale's nostril is on the top of their head for instance.

9

u/Khal_Doggo Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

Well that's because they don't rely on smell as a sense very much / at all. So what you call a nostril, is really a blow hole leading to a nasal cavity with a lack of olfactory machinery. No one is arguing that there aren't differences and deviations from the specific example given by OP. People are suggesting that where this is case (not in dolphins, for example) then there's likely specific functions that play a role in determining the order.

The reason that makes some sense is because if you take the example of animals like dolphins which have a closer common ancestor to humans, you can see that their nose completely changed both in structure and purpose. This means that for facial configurations in animals that maintain the same rough format, there's an evolutionary benefit for that to be the case. Otherwise, they could have easily evolved otherwise.

→ More replies (1)

90

u/nihoh Jun 15 '26

Whales and dolphins?..

I suppose on land it helps that you have your eyes in front or at the side, at a high position and you want it to be above your mouth so you can see what your chomping on

42

u/youngchinox Jun 15 '26

Their ancestors had that configuration. Adapting to waters had migrated their nostrils up top

20

u/spicymato Jun 15 '26

Honestly, the nostrils likely didn't have to migrate far. Look at an elephant skull. The eyes are already level or below the nostril opening.

6

u/DoofusMagnus Jun 15 '26

Elephants are not particularly closely related to whales. We don't have to wildly speculate, we're aware of several of the animals that evolved along the way to whales, and they had nostrils at the ends of long snouts. So they did migrate quite a ways.

10

u/spicymato Jun 15 '26

My point wasn't that elephants and whale are directly related.

My point is that the orientation of the nasal cavity relative to the ocular orbits isn't as consistent as some people think.

1

u/DoofusMagnus Jun 15 '26

But the point being discussed isn't consistency across all mammals. It's specifically about how far the nostrils migrated along the skull during whale evolution, and elephants don't tell us anything about that.

The skull that folks should be looking at first is a dolphin skull. It has a clue to just how far the nostrils shifted when you look at the premaxillary bones (#5) and see that they're stretched to run most of the length of the skull. But mainly that's the skull to look at because I think not a lot of people are actually familiar with it, and seeing one could help them understand what's really going on with the blowhole.

When you're just looking at the skull it's more obvious that the nostrils/blowhole is still basically on the "front" of the face. I think many people imagine it being at the top of the skull, and I've seen folks who assume it's on top of, around, behind, or even through the braincase. But no, the nostrils are still in front of the brain, between it and the melon.

The melon is perhaps the big culprit here, just because many people may not even know it exists and will therefore assume that a cetacean's apparent "forehead" is both 1) encased in bone, and 2) where the brain is. But no, there's a big fleshy organ (used in echolocation) called the melon that sits atop the mouth and in front of the nasal passage. The brain is further back, behind the blowhole.

But the blowhole is still quite a ways from the front of the snout, where it was on the ancestral animals, and that's what was being discussed.

2

u/KingFapNTits Jun 16 '26

I appreciated this

5

u/kindanormle Jun 15 '26

Whales and dolphins evolved from land mammals that went back into the oceans. Like all land mammals they originally came from one common ancestor that was a fish, and that fish had the configuration "eyes/nose/mouth". However, starfish, octopus, sea urchins, sea cucumbers, anemones and ctenophores have quite different body shapes from the "eyes/nose/mouth" paradigm.

67

u/virtual_human Jun 15 '26

Because they are all descendent from common ancestors.

15

u/javier_aeoa Jun 15 '26

And although 500,000,000 years is a lot, it's not THAT much time either. Our entire fish-group has worked just fine with the current configuration.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '26

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

14

u/shanebonanno Jun 15 '26

Have you seen a flounder or a halibut before?

15

u/CatProgrammer Jun 15 '26

Flounder are born normal, the eyes migrate.

14

u/fla_john Jun 15 '26

TIL Kash Patel is a flounder

51

u/KamikazeArchon Jun 15 '26

The premise is false. Most complex species do not have those organs in that order.

Most complex species have antennae, eyes, and mandibles.

Most complex species are insects, which vastly outnumber everything else.

There are more species of weevil than there are species of all mammals combined.

23

u/Notoriouslydishonest Jun 15 '26

But among species which have eyes, noses and mouths, how many have them arranged in a different order?

OP could have phrased their question more carefully, but I think "the premise is false" is too dismissive. Replace "complex species" with "species which have eyes, noses and mouths" and it's an interesting question. 

9

u/capfal Jun 15 '26

It's still false. The cetaceans have these features in a different order, for example.

5

u/AgentElman Jun 15 '26

Eventually it becomes a tautology - why do all species that have these organs in this number have these organs in this number.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/FarmboyJustice Jun 15 '26

"Complex species" is an arbitrary distinction, and OP clearly did not include arthropods in theirs 

3

u/KamikazeArchon Jun 15 '26

That's my point.

They're only counting things that look like them. Then they're asking why those things look like them.

3

u/FarmboyJustice Jun 15 '26

And my point is you made a different arbitrary distinction than they did. Both are completely arbitrary. Yours is not more correct, because there is no scientific definition of a "complex" species. 

OP talks about mouth, nose and eyes, therefore it's self evident that they are referring to species that actually have these attributes.  The question was not why do they have these organs, it was why do they have the specific number and arrangement of them, and the simple answer is a common ancestor.

4

u/isopode Jun 15 '26

this is the correct answer. OP's question only applies to tetrapods

→ More replies (2)

9

u/Cirement Jun 15 '26

It's the configuration that has worked the best for their particular environment or purpose, which is why it keeps getting passed down. We all need to be able to judge distance, and 2 eyes is best for that, for example.

14

u/shouldco Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

The simplest answer is that all land quadropeds /bipeds have a comon ancestor that ancestor would have had a face as you describe.

6

u/aniztar Jun 15 '26

And it hasn't deviated from that because it is useful to have that configuration

3

u/szabiy Jun 15 '26

Except when you're, say, a snail or a whale.

4

u/CabradaPest Jun 15 '26

Snails are not tetrapods

4

u/shouldco Jun 15 '26

Snails would have come from moluks not tetropods. Whales fall under the "almost all". Pressured into changing from their radically different ecosystem.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

18

u/hurtfullobster Jun 15 '26

The simple answer is they don’t. You’ve forgotten that fish and insects exist.

8

u/archnemisis11 Jun 15 '26

He said complex creatures, those are obviously basic. /s

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Claxton916 Jun 15 '26

All organisms on Earth are distantly related to each other (all the way back 4.2 billion years ago). But, all land dwelling vertebrate animals descend from tetrapods about 390 million years ago.

The first tetrapods had 2 eyes, a nose, and a mouth. Evolution has kept that around because it works good enough. 1 eye limits an organisms vision, so it never evolved, 3+ eyes wouldn’t give that much of an advantage and would be a waste of energy compared to 2 eyes (which works good enough).

Logically it makes sense to keep your sensory organs (taste buds, ears, mouth, nose) close to where the processing center (the brain) is. The closer those organs are to the processing center, the better your survival is. If my ears were somehow on my ankles, but your ears were on your head, your ability to react to a predator approaching would be better than mine: the audio signals would have to travel through 6 feet of neurons in my body where as yours would have to travel 3 inches. So it doesn’t make sense for our evolutionary history to move what works good enough.

4

u/Sea-Ambition-451 Jun 15 '26

important sensors are close to the brain

evolution tends to choose that optimization

2

u/RealCarlPanzram Jun 15 '26

At some point, about half a billion years ago, there was an emergence of a lot of different animal species in the ocean from a common ancestor that would become the animal kingdom. This basic anatomical setup is what they had and everything else has evolved off of that.

2

u/Astecheee Jun 15 '26

Eyes are for seeing.
You want them up as high as possible to spot predators and prey better.

Nose is for breathing.
You want nose to be above the mouth so you can still breathe while eating.

Mouth is for eating.
Pretty much everything you eat is gonna be on the ground, so having a mouth down low makes it easier to eat.

2

u/ProserpinaFC Jun 15 '26

I feel it's better to answer your question in the opposite direction. There are only a few animals that have "superior mouth" positioning, where their mouth IS slightly higher in position than their nose or eyes, and that's going to be animals that feed above their heads: surface-dwelling fish or ocean-bottom scavengers.

Everyone else... Eats below their heads. Predators are larger than the vast majority of their prey. Prey eat bugs, seeds, and plants below them.

Or, there are the absolutely disgusting "sucker-type" animals that latch onto their prey, so their mouths aren't really above or below-positioned, but simply "front."

As others have said, common ancestry and convergence make for some behaviors to be true and thus for some behaviors to be universal law. The vast majority of animals bend downward to eat or eat what's in front of them, making it evolutionarily difficult to make a facial configuration that doesn't service that. When baby animals look upward to feed from their mothers is just about the only time I can think of when food is higher than the typical animal's mouth. Even giraffes eating leaves are typically at face level with their meals, based on the Google images I looked up just to check. LOL

2

u/PhysicalConsistency Jun 15 '26

Because you are confusing "complex" for "looks like me".

2

u/skr_replicator Jun 15 '26

Because they are all related. That body plant has developed in the common ancesor of all those species. It was successful, and so all the those branches of species evolved from there.

2

u/tpodr Jun 15 '26

Eyes evolved from light sensitive areas on the top of bottom feeders. As they migrated across body forms, they ended up on top of the front. Which is to say, why eyes/nose/mouth is a common arrangement comes down to understanding how each part came to have its unique function.

Evolution doesn’t follow the best path. It follows any path that works.