Evolution in reverse: How did mites get less specialized?
But the microscopic dust mite also turns out to be a peculiar example of evolution “in reverse”—or more precisely, despecialization—according to a new study by University of Michigan biologists Pavel Klimov and Barry OConnor. And this counters a long-held assumption in evolutionary biology known as Dollo’s law (after the 19th-century Belgian paleontologist Louis Dollo), which stipulates that once you gain a complex trait, you can’t return to the simpler states of your distant ancestors.
This poses a conundrum in the mite world. The distant ancestors of dust mites evolved to be able to feed directly on a bird or mammal—to become parasitic and therefore more complex. So how did the free-living dust mites get to be free living, and thus less complex? There were 62 different hypotheses in the academic literature trying to answer this question. …
But the result was clear. “The authors have made a compelling case that free-living dust mites evolved from a parasite, thus providing another counterexample to Dollo’s law,” says Jeff Gore, a biophysicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who did groundbreaking work on bacterial evolution. As Klimov explains, “we found that very specialized organisms like parasites can drastically become despecialized.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Simple, nothing is getting more complex as macro-evolution calls for. It didn’t happen. However devolution is genetic fact, all the genomes are breaking down… just as any reasonable person would expect.
That is the nature of the universe that we see all around us, entropy, everything running down like a clock. Wearing out like an old garment.
Axion on March 19, 2013 at 9:59 PM
Pfft. It’s believed that this is exactly how viruses originated. Life doesn’t conveniently follow centuries-old “progress” and “regress” pigeon holing. Friends, this isn’t science: it’s bad science, and bad journalism for not recognizing that fact.
Xavier on March 19, 2013 at 9:59 PM
For the love of God, why does evolution cause any controversy? Genetic traits that give an advantage in survival to reproductive maturity, propagate at a greater rate than those that don’t.
It doesn’t matter which ‘direction’ the traits go. Complex or simple. It makes no difference.
it’s not ‘Devolution’ – it’s just evolution. If the proto-mites that was more specialized had babies that were more successful when generalized, then slowly the more specialized mites disappeared and generalized took over. That’s how it works.
WashingtonsWake on March 19, 2013 at 10:04 PM
Ace linked to a TED conference video called “Big History” or something like the History of the Universe in 18 minutes. He argues that increasing complexity is to be expected because of goldilocks conditions.
tom daschle concerned on March 19, 2013 at 10:05 PM
‘
This is one of the things that has always amazed me about the theory of “evolution”. The idea that things (animals, organisms, humans…) can somehow determine the future design of the next generation.
In school, we were always taught about the snowshoe rabbit that supposedly decided to change his fur color because it sucked being a brown rabbit in the snow.
How did this happen??
The suggestion that somehow, he decided to tell his babies to be white, and not only he, but all of the rabbits of his type did the same?
Sorry, but it sounds as far fetched as there being life on the moon.
If God wanted life on the Moon, there would be life on the Moon.
.
cntrlfrk on March 19, 2013 at 10:06 PM
Pretty much, yeah.
alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 10:13 PM
You forgot the /sarc tag.
alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 10:14 PM
cntrlfrk on March 19, 2013 at 10:06 PM
No, that’s not the theory. The theory is that mutations are random, and natural selection determines the future of (the survivors of) the next generation.
bernverdnardo1 on March 19, 2013 at 10:14 PM
True, but you’re offending the religion of those who trust in Darwin.
itsnotaboutme on March 19, 2013 at 10:24 PM
Am I reading this wrong or are you suggesting entropy disproves evolution?
alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 10:27 PM
Really hope you’re kidding here.
Esoteric on March 19, 2013 at 10:34 PM
That’s one of several ways macro-evolution is disproved.
Axion on March 19, 2013 at 10:37 PM
No, what he’s suggesting is that entropy can overcome evolution.
nobar on March 19, 2013 at 10:37 PM
LOL!
alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 11:09 PM
LO f’n L!
alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 11:10 PM
In the interest of full disclosure, I did get a B in thermodynamics but if you think the Second Law in any way disproves evolution then I’m totally confident I know way more about it than you do. Quit while you’re behind on this one.
alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 11:14 PM
Organism don’t change themselves. That’s not how evolution works.
Evolution occurs as the result of two processes: (1) Genetic variation and (2) natural selection.
(1) Genetic variation: Individual organisms receive a random assortment of genes from both of their parents. This leads to individuals with different genomes. In addition, there often are copying error and mutations that occur shortly after conception that lead to even more genetically diverse individuals.
This is why you can have two fair-haired parents producing red-head and brown haired children. The parent’s don’t choose their children’s genes … they just randomly come out differently.
(2) Natural selection: Nature is a cruel, cruel force. Those individuals that cannot survive are killed, eaten or just simply die before they can have offspring. Certain individuals, however, have been born with slight advantages due to random genetic variations.
… the climate gets colder, therefore bunnies that were born with whiter fur can hide from predators easier. Those whiter bunnies survive to have children, but the darker bunnies get eaten. After 10s of generations, the darker bunnies become extinct and the bunny (as a species) has evolved into white bunnies.
Take those 10s of generations and bring it to hundreds of thousands of generations, and you have macroevolution where species split and become several different species.
EG, how Mastiffs and Toy Terriers are both dogs, but have evolved so differently in size (by humans purposefully manipulating the environment’s natural selection), that you can no longer breed Mastiffs and Toy Terriers and get puppies. Mastiffs/Toy Terriers are becoming different species before our very eyes.
ZachV on March 19, 2013 at 11:30 PM
This is what one of the world’s most accomplished geneticist; John Sanford has to say. You won’t read it, but you should.
Axion on March 19, 2013 at 11:31 PM
The recent CNN coverage of the teen rape by athletes is an example of reverse evolution.
jediwebdude on March 19, 2013 at 11:37 PM
No. Macroevolution is the basis of modern biology, and confirmed through evidence from all disciplines of biological science : botany, archaeology, paleontology, virology, microbiology, entymology, zoology, genetics, anatomy … I could go on.
There is no contrary evidence, else you would have to disprove the entirety of biology. You either understand how evolution works, or you are a punk that flunked your sophomore biology class.
ZachV on March 19, 2013 at 11:39 PM
This explains how Democrats devolved.
unclesmrgol on March 19, 2013 at 11:48 PM
I don’t think I would argue that macroevolution is the “basis of modern biology.”
tom daschle concerned on March 19, 2013 at 11:49 PM
That guy ain’t one of the world’s most accomplished geneticists, sorry to rain on your parade.
And if he’s talking about entropy he’s not doing it in the thermodynamic term.
alchemist19 on March 19, 2013 at 11:59 PM
There are five axioms of modern biology. The first three are:
1. Cells are the basic unit of life.
2. Genes are the basic unit of heredity.
3. New species and inherited traits are the product of evolution.
If we need the review, ‘axiom’ is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. If you don’t understand what evolution, cells or genes are, you’re due back in Biology 101.
ZachV on March 20, 2013 at 12:00 AM
I doubt you will read this but you should.
alchemist19 on March 20, 2013 at 12:09 AM
Evolution, which is a change in gene frequency in a population over time, is not a belief. It is the cornerstone of modern biology and represents knowledge based on scientific method; thousands of carefully controlled scientific studies published in refereed journals.
Knowledge is based on scientific method; belief is everything else. Evolution is even accepted by many theologists and major religious groups. In fact, evolution has been recognized as valid even by the catholic church since 1950, and reaffirmed not to be in conflict with religious beliefs by Pope John Paul II in 1996. Evolution is totally neutral in respect to divinity and only conflicts with ones beliefs if one wishes them to conflict.
nazo311 on March 20, 2013 at 1:04 AM
They no longer had government job-training programs as a result of sequestration.
steebo77 on March 20, 2013 at 4:23 AM
ZachV on March 19, 2013 at 11:30 PM
Seriously- YOU are lecturing us on science. Are you just copying off a website? You actually argued with me that there was proof that simple organism were actually gay.
Still waiting to see the slides of the gay bacteria..
melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 7:28 AM
Yeppers still waiting on those simple gay organisms slides…. bwwwwahhhaaaa
melle1228 on March 20, 2013 at 7:30 AM
Materialist evolutionists jump through a lot of hoops to deny God.
RayinVA on March 20, 2013 at 7:46 AM
Perhaps I’m looking at this a bit more simply, but why is it somehow ‘better’ to specialize?
Specialization makes a species more subject to any changes in the environment, thereby making them less likely to survive as a species.
Evidently the environment these mites are in favor all sort of traits that favor a more diverse gene pool, hence ‘despecialization’.
Preconceived notions like this make scientists blind & biased.
Badger40 on March 20, 2013 at 8:08 AM
I think there were some major problems with your science education in High School. I am sorry this happened to you.
Please note:
As a religious, God fearing person, I have no problem with the facts found in nature.
If one would like to argue other things, like what organism is which one’s ancestor/descendant, I think that’s a better topic to argue.
But genetic frequencies change due to environmental pressures ‘selecting’ (this is not saying there is some sort of thing out there making arbitrary or designed selections of one over another) for the traits that make an organism successful regarding survival & passing on their genetic traits to the next generation.
Science should never be about whether God does or does not exist & is God directing these things we see in phenomena.
This is what philosophy is for.
Badger40 on March 20, 2013 at 8:14 AM
If you really want to find absolute adherence to religious dogma in our society, look at science.
Shump on March 20, 2013 at 8:16 AM
I agree. The feild, like politics, stinks with bias.
It needs to be cleansed of the heretics.
Badger40 on March 20, 2013 at 8:29 AM
This whole concept of reverse evolution eludes me. The other think is that they needed to look at dust mites to see this? What about blind cave fish? What about whales? Didn’t they crawl out of the water form legs in a giant evolutionary leap and then looked around and saw that the water was better and pranced back to the water for another giant evolutionary leap back to flippers?
Dr. Frank Enstine on March 20, 2013 at 8:55 AM
Macro-evolution is not the basis of anything except the fantasy religion known as evolutionism. There is and has been lots of good science going on in biology and none of it came about because of adherence to the macro-evolution nonsense.
More and more the biological community would like to shake you evolutionists off like a case of bad flees. You drag the good science down with your nonsense… evolutionists try to take credit where they are due no credit.
Axion on March 20, 2013 at 9:02 AM
All I know is that Democrats are getting stupider every year.
GardenGnome on March 20, 2013 at 9:09 AM
I don’t think he is.
I think he’s referring to Entropy in the Cosmological sense. IE: the entire Universe is slowly winding down over trillions of eons. Yes, this is related to Thermodynamics, but the definition is quite a bit broader.
That said, I still think the idea of “Entropy disproves evolution” is bunkum.
wearyman on March 20, 2013 at 9:19 AM