If a trait A exists in 10% of the population of an asexually reproducing species and a trait B exists in 60% of the same population, which trait would have arisen earlier?
As a general rule, the greater the percentage of a population that shares a trait, the longer that trait has been in existance. Think of an epidemic of the flu. If ten people have it in one school and sixty people have it in another, which school do you think has been infected longer?
To determine which trait would have arisen earlier, we need to consider the mechanisms behind their evolution. In asexually reproducing species, traits can arise through two main processes: mutation and genetic drift.
Mutation is the introduction of new variations or changes in the DNA sequence. It can lead to the emergence of new traits within a population. Genetic drift, on the other hand, refers to random changes in the frequency of traits due to chance events. It can cause some traits to become more or less common over time.
Now, let's apply this knowledge to the traits A and B in your question. If trait A exists in 10% of the population, it suggests that it might be a relatively new trait, as its frequency is low. This could indicate that trait A has arisen recently through mutation.
In contrast, if trait B exists in 60% of the population, it suggests that it is a more established and prevalent trait, as its frequency is higher. This could indicate that trait B has been present in the population for a longer time, allowing it to become more widespread through genetic drift or other mechanisms.
Based on this information, we can conclude that trait B would have arisen earlier than trait A in this asexually reproducing species.