[op00to]

No. If every single “protein marker” on the spike protein was changed, there wouldn’t be a heck of a lot of chance for the virus to attach to a cell. There still needs to be basic compatibility with the cell and the spike to get inside.

[chii]

> there wouldn’t be a heck of a lot of chance for the virus to attach to a cell.

but there isn't just a single shape that could be used to attach to a cell. Another shape could be compatible, but is not targeted by the vaccine of today.

I'm guessing that this makes the virus a different virus - but isn't that what mutations are? they are slowly causing the virus to change and at some point, it becomes a different virus.

[mbreese]

What you’re talking about is a different form of evolution where there are effectively “multiple answers to the same problem”. A common example is if there are two bird species eat the same nut, they might have two very different beak shapes that both open that nut.

But that’s not how the type of evolution in a single virus works[0]. Within a single organism/virus, the evolution is more like finding a local minima. There certainly could be a more effective design with a different shape. But it is very difficult to break out of a local minima through mutation and natural selection. You still have to maintain the function of a protein while simultaneously mutating it. So, breaking out of a local minima is really difficult. As you said, evolution is a slow process, so you wouldn’t expect to see dramatic changes in a shape and keep the same function.

[0] I’ve deliberately left out things like horizontal gene transfer, transposons, and gene duplication, all of which can involve hyper mutation or gain of function without being under selective pressure.