1
$\begingroup$

The Wiki entry on the evolution of biological complexity states that "[m]utations causing loss of a complex trait occur more often than mutations causing gain of a complex trait". There is no inline citation supporting this claim, nor could I find anything of the sort in the bibliography. So I was wondering whether this is thought to be the case and what key work has been done concerning this claim i.e. major papers either for or against the thesis.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Many mutations are needed for complex gain of function. Only a tiny mutation is needed for loss. Only one change is needed to break a long chain of synthesis. For example, the chain needed for melanin sythesis - see albinism albinism.org/information-bulletin-what-is-albinism $\endgroup$ Jul 8 at 23:56
  • $\begingroup$ @PolypipeWrangler While the principle you mention is a good general guide, there are exceptions. For example, a single mutation in a regulatory region can change the location and/or timing of expression of a protein and produce complex changes. See the often dramatic results of mutations in insect Hox genes. $\endgroup$
    – Armand
    Jul 9 at 4:39
4
$\begingroup$

While I don't have a citation at hand, I don't think that one is needed. The principle follows directly from the notion of mutation in a complex system. Put simply, once you've got a functional complex trait in play, there are many ways to break it and much fewer that can further improve it.

This fact is often mis-interpreted by creationists to claim the evolution of complex traits is impossible. With a population under selective pressure, it doesn't matter if more mutations are negative than positive, because the positive traits produce many more descendants.

To take a current example, the SARS-CoV-2 virus has an important complex trait in the form of the spike protein that enables it to invade human cells. An infected person produces a vast number of copies of the virus, many of which have mutations that destroy the functionality of the spike protein. So those mutations disappear immediately, while the non-mutated or neutrally-mutated copies infect as usual and the rare improvement in efficacy brings us developments like the Delta strain.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ +1 I think it is worth qualifying what is meant by more often. In a particular individual the loss of trait is certainly more likely than the gain. On the other hand, the direction of evolution as a whole demonstrates acquisition rather than the loss of traits: complex organisms evolved from simple ones, contrary to the creationist argument. $\endgroup$ Jul 9 at 8:38
  • $\begingroup$ @RogerVadim "Direction of evolution" and "creationist argument" should have some scientific definitions attached if they're to be posted here, I think. This question seem to be simply about the mutation event (based on the context of the referenced wiki quote). $\endgroup$
    – Armand
    Jul 9 at 19:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Armand I am saying that "more often" is both correct and wrong, depending on what one is talking about. $\endgroup$ Jul 10 at 0:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.