http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/1 ... ef=science (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/house-dust-mites-prove-reversible-evolution-study_n_2878379.html?utm_hp_ref=science)
QuoteAn often-despised common household pest may have disproven a deeply rooted biological principle -- the idea that, as far as evolution is concerned, you can't go backward.
Who's the culprit? The lowly dust mite. By examining and mapping out the phylogenetic tree of the mite in a new study, researchers at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor have found that evolution is reversible.
The idea has always been "once a parasite, always a parasite," study co-author Dr. Barry OConnor, a professor at the university's Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, told The Huffington Post. But his recent study suggests otherwise.
With the help of other biologists around the world, Oconnor and his research team looked at about 700 mite species. They then sequenced five nuclear genes from the species and created a sort of mite family tree.
The researchers found that free-living dust mites evolved from parasitic mites, which themselves were originally free-living organisms. This, OConnor said, is "conclusive evidence" that reversal is possible.
He said, in his opinion, the research shows reversible evolution is possible on a complex ecological scale.
This conclusion of the study contradicts the 120-year-old principle known as Dollo's law, which essentially states evolution is not reversible.
Yet, in addition to its academic and theoretical applications, the study's conclusion may have a more practical use: A better understanding of dust mites may help scientists find ways to aid the up to 1.2 billion people who are allergic to the pesky, ubiquitous creatures.
"This result was so surprising that we decided to contact our colleagues to obtain their feedback prior to sending these data for publication," study co-author Dr. Pavel Klimov, an assistant research scientist in the university's Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, said in a written statement. "Parasites can quickly evolve highly sophisticated mechanisms for host exploitation and can lose their ability to function away from the host body. Many researchers in the field perceive such specialization as evolutionarily irreversible."
Some colleagues have yet to completely warm up to the study's idea. "Are we being laughed at by people? No," OConnor told HuffPost. "It's only some folks who aren't being flexible."
We'll be hearing more about this, I'm sure.
That's not how people normally use the word "reversible", though. They didn't reverse the changes their ancestors had made, they evolved to live without hosts. Evolution has only one direction - forward in time.
Quote from: "stromboli"QuoteThe idea has always been "once a parasite, always a parasite,"
Not really.
Not to mention all the study shows is that a parasitic mite evolved to take advantage of a new environment.
That is interesting, the bollocks that they heap on top is not.
I don't see how this is any more "reverse" evolution than any species evolving into a niche and then evolving to become more generalized again.
Man, what a lousy interpreation of the data. It reminds me of some show on the Science channel that was talking about the recent advances in neuroscience in regards to our ability to accurately predict some actions of people by like 5 seconds in advance based on their neurophysiology. It claimed that it pointed to a possible, er, "leak back in time", rather than the seemingly obvious conclusion that free will mightn't exist.
You see this all the time when some "science writer" (actually a writer who got assigned to the science desk) "interprets" a scientific announcement. And, since the lay public can't understand the original announcement, but can understand the lay version, they assume that the lay version is the actual scientific announcement. Then when the lay version is shown to be nonsense, they assume that science has been shown to be wrong yet one more time.
Nothing we can do about it, though. Anyone is free to write an article he doesn't understand anything about.
It's obvious God favors dust mites over us lowly humans. Kill a dust mite in thy neighbors house and you owe him 1000 shekles.. or an eye...maybe a son. God hasn't ruled on this yet. :-k
I would think that by claiming evolution cannot move in any specific direction, whether forward sideways or even in reverse would be the same as saying that it was predetermined. Evolution should be able to adapt to whatever it must adapt to. One "stage" is not aware of the previous, so whatever direction it would "move" in "could" be to its advantage. Only time would be able to tell if it was the right path. But I didn't read the article, so sue me.
Quote from: "aitm"I would think that by claiming evolution cannot move in any specific direction, whether forward sideways or even in reverse would be the same as saying that it was predetermined. Evolution should be able to adapt to whatever it must adapt to. One "stage" is not aware of the previous, so whatever direction it would "move" in "could" be to its advantage. Only time would be able to tell if it was the right path. But I didn't read the article, so sue me.
I agree. If devolving of a trait or form serves to improve the adaptation, it could happen. One direction is a boy band, not a scientific absolute.
Imagine the evolutionary bullshit they'll come up with after we keep feeding cows animal parts for 100,000 years instead of grass and cows evolve into giant meat eating beasts with huge, sharp teeth and razorlike hooves and wings so they can fly.. Dust mites will look pretty pewny by that standard.. :shock:
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Imagine the evolutionary bullshit they'll come up with after we keep feeding cows animal parts for 100,000 years instead of grass and cows evolve into giant meat eating beasts with huge, sharp teeth and razorlike hooves and wings so they can fly..
I think you're confusing cows with pigs. :)
Isnt evolution simply change over time?
One can not reverse evolution in the same way that one cannot reverse the direction of time as far as I know.
Quote from: "Cocoa Beware"Isnt evolution simply change over time?
One can not reverse evolution in the same way that one cannot reverse the direction of time as far as I know.
you are assuming that evolution has a path that can be determined, that would kinda be like against the whole idea of evolution, it has to be able to go in any way it needs, even in reverse, if it helps survival.
Isn't "reverse" evolution just evolution?
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Imagine the evolutionary bullshit they'll come up with after we keep feeding cows animal parts for 100,000 years instead of grass and cows evolve into giant meat eating beasts with huge, sharp teeth and razorlike hooves and wings so they can fly.. Dust mites will look pretty pewny by that standard.. :shock:
If you think the cow sounds scarier, you've maybe never seend a dust mite up close.
(//https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWaozhOz6DPF-CIWEWyQzo710VsrvSPOJPJ-t77efEir19174J)
(//https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWaozhOz6DPF-CIWEWyQzo710VsrvSPOJPJ-t77efEir19174J)
Oh he's cute!
I shall name him George.
Quote from: "aitm"Quote from: "Cocoa Beware"Isnt evolution simply change over time?
One can not reverse evolution in the same way that one cannot reverse the direction of time as far as I know.
you are assuming that evolution has a path that can be determined, that would kinda be like against the whole idea of evolution, it has to be able to go in any way it needs, even in reverse, if it helps survival.
Thats kind of what I thought.
Evolution cant really go "backwards" because adaptation doesnt necessarily require that an organism become more complex. Survival is what counts.
Quote from: "bennyboy"Isn't "reverse" evolution just evolution?
Exactly. It's all just evolution. In this case, it's evolution to a form that resembles an ancestral organism as a result of evolutionary pressures that were similar to what was encountered before the ancestral line became parasitic. It only appears like "reverse" evolution.
Quote from: "Cocoa Beware"Evolution cant really go "backwards" because adaptation doesnt necessarily require that an organism become more complex.
Well, it kind of does, but in a roundabout way. (It's called the Drunkard's Walk.) If the odds of getting more complex and less complex are the same, there's almost no limit to how complex an organism can get, but there's a lower limit - if it gets too simple it's no longer a living organism. So evolution tends toward the more complex. (Not an original idea - I read it in Gould. He may have gotten it somewhere.)