I don't think this is as surprising as the article makes it seem. Gene expression regulatory networks are often several layers deep. It's like

    if foo:
      if bar:
        if baz:
          thing 1
        else:
          thing 2
      modification 1
    else:
      thing 3
      

if foo has been off for millions of years, and bar and baz have not broken since then, then enabling foo brings back the whole ancient show. Plants have notoriously large genomes because they can't move around, so whenever they grow they have to adapt to the conditions in that place. It makes sense to keep a lot of old code around just in case.

Interesting article overall, but the odd focus on "reverse evolution" is rather weak. Natural selection has no direction, and the dead ends sometimes are just dormant paths waiting for reason to be selected again. Even us sophisticated mammals only remain mammals because of inertia and survival benefit, but the environment can apply new pressures to change our direction.

"quietly" ? as opposed to filing a public announcement? I see this clickbait term a lot, especially on the news feed/launch page when I open chrome.

There's no such thing as de-evolution unless you consider evolution has some purposeful direction in the first place. The tomatoes are evolving into the niche that works. Just because there was a plant in the past that occupied that niche doesn't mean the current plants are going backwards - to do so would kind of imply that they know about their current genetic makeup and have decided it's too much effort and isn't working out.

> That's because evolution isn't supposed to have a rewind button. It's generally viewed as a one-way march toward adaptation, not a circular path back to traits once lost.

Says who? Evolution isn't an intelligent being trying to be originally creative.

Well, refurbishment is often cheaper than buying new.

Energy domes are red for a reason, spuds