I don’t entirely agree, because gender identity is known to be at least partially biological, e.g. there are correlations between transgenderism, skin elasticity, and hyper-flexibility.

it’s a normalized distribution. The y-axis is unitless.

yes.

Yes, but the top level comment is countering it using an incorrect application of the theory of evolution. If top-level-comment really meant “needs,” then it would not be a counter to the original post. If by “needs” they meant more colloquially “would be an improvement,” then it may counter the original comment, but it’s not actually a valid argument.

I’m not claiming that this change in how eyes work would be an improvement. I’m claiming that the following does not hold generally: “Doesn’t have adaptation X ⇒ adaptation X would not improve fitness.”

The problem is that the landscape of where the global maxima are changes faster than evolution can keep up. If the environment were entirely static, then yes, mathematically speaking any random optimizer would eventually reach a global maximum. However, it could take, say, 10⁵⁰ years or more to jump from a local maximum to a distant, higher maximum.

Okay true, but I still feel the comment was misleading. If it were phrased as “If vertebrae don’t have it, it means it wouldn’t improve their fitness” it would be wrong. I’ll admit that the comment as worded is true, but it does depend on a very literal interpretation of what “needs” means. Why even post that? In my opinion, that makes it low-quality content, so worth a downvote.

The . is not visible to me at any distance without taking my eyes off the x

that’s not how evolution works. Evolution is not able to produce global maxima, only local maxima.