<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"><title>HotAir</title><link>https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2013/03/19/evolution-in-reverse-how-did-mites-get-less-specialized/feed/</link><description>HotAir is the leading conservative blog for breaking news and commentary covering the Biden administration, politics, media, culture, and current elections.</description><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 12:17:37 -0400</lastBuildDate><item><title>Evolution in reverse: How did mites get less specialized?</title><description>&lt;![CDATA[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.]]&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 19 Mar 2013 21:45:46 -0400</pubDate><creator xmlns="dc">&lt;![CDATA[Erika Johnsen]]&gt;</creator><enclosure url="" type="image/jpeg" length="123" /><link>https://hotair.com/headlines/2013/03/19/evolution-in-reverse-how-did-mites-get-less-specialized-n281181</link></item></channel></rss>