If humans are more likely to take photos of racoons they find cute, we’d expect those racoons to have cuter features than the average racoon. It might not be actual change going on, is the point being made.
We don’t conciously notice the snout length, just the ones we think are cute are probably slightly more likely to have a shorter snout.
On a 5cm snout, 3.5% is less than 2 mm. You not only wouldn’t notice it with the naked eye, it’s almost a small enough difference to get lost in the noise .
The study is saying they’re already seeing these imperceptible differences in racoons they’re measuring.
I don’t think someone would notice a 3.5% shorter snout when they took the picture.
If humans are more likely to take photos of racoons they find cute, we’d expect those racoons to have cuter features than the average racoon. It might not be actual change going on, is the point being made.
We don’t conciously notice the snout length, just the ones we think are cute are probably slightly more likely to have a shorter snout.
My point is that the change in length is only 3.5%, more than someone would notice when taking a photo.
If it was not noticeably cuter, then it would cause no advantage and the theory falls. (Which is possible, of course.)
On a 5cm snout, 3.5% is less than 2 mm. You not only wouldn’t notice it with the naked eye, it’s almost a small enough difference to get lost in the noise .
The study is saying they’re already seeing these imperceptible differences in racoons they’re measuring.
Not individually, but over nearly 20,000 instances.