Storytelling Passes For Science

Welcome 2016, which there is great hope that it will bring forth even greater science discoveries than in 2015. However, storytelling will be on the increase this year as well. This blog has been a critic of telling a story then passing on as though it was a discovery in science which in fact it was not!

lava flowing

Take volcanoes for example. Volcanoes are amazing, huge gasses build up over time underground along with magma, eventually causes an explosion that spews rock and gas to the surface. Often times these events are dangerous to man but amazing to observe from a safe distance.

Live Science recently published one of the most absurd stories ever to be written on the supposed evolution of man’s intelligence. The story goes like this…

“Vast lava flows may have provided humans with access to heat and fire for cooking their food millions of years ago, one researcher has proposed.
That, in turn, would have enabled the evolution of human intelligence, Michael Medler, a geographer at Western Washington University, said at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union earlier this month.”

Keep in mind, living by a volcano is very dangerous. Lava is very hot and can reach up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. This is not something you want to be around because 150 degrees Fahrenheit can cause your lungs to stop functioning and as a result, you would be dead. 2,000 degrees would turn a human body into ash in no time.

Michael Medler is suggesting in his story using circular reasoning which he admits would be difficult to test, that because lava created fires and heat, this caused evolution in man’s intelligence. You can say this for a book, because humans have access to books caused supposed evolution in man’s intelligence. We know that books are designed by intelligence and depending upon content in the book, and the person, it does make them smarter. But is that evidence for intelligent design because one can learn from a book? Even if man learned how to cook from observing lava (which is not the case), it certainly would not be evidence that it’s evolution at work neither should this be called, “science”.

Many stories comes from bones, and often times are not testable to verify one’s theory in evolution. Michael Shermer whose book, “The Moral Arc” claims that evolution,  along with reason will lead humanity toward truth, justice and freedom. His piece which was published in Scientific American on Jan 1, 2016, was far from leading humanity toward truth. In fact, his article on the conduct of the Homo naledi bones were found in a South African cave was a mythical story that he himself had invented and was trying to pass it on to Scientific American readers as science, but it wasn’t based on any factual evidence.

Hawks who is a paleoanthropologist that has worked on the Homo naledi bones had called out Shermer on his mythical story. Here is what he says in his blog

“Extinct Human Species Commit Homicide?”. Shermer is a regular columnist and contributing editor of Scientific American and the editor of Skeptic magazine. He is widely recognized as a leader of the skeptic movement in the U.S.”

“Here’s a sentence summing up his idea of a violent fate for Homo naledi:

Whatever you call it—war or murder—it is violent death nonetheless, and further examination of the Homo naledi fossils should consider violence (war or murder for the adults, sacrifice for the juveniles) as a plausible cause of death and deposition in the cave. “War or murder for the adults, sacrifice for the juveniles.” Shermer conjures the Dinaledi Chamber in the bowels of an Aztec pyramid.”

“It doesn’t sound like the work of a skeptic. Shermer does not seem to have read our open access paper very carefully, because he seems completely oblivious to the evidence most relevant to his idea.”

The last paragraph sums up in a way, scientists who believe in evolution. The evidence says one thing, but become oblivious to it because it doesn’t agree with evolution. Such as fruit flies being mutated over 600 generations in the best environment possible and instead of becoming more open to evolutionary change, the fruit flies became more resistant and started going backwards which surprised many evolutionists. The evidence suggests that fruit flies cannot evolve into another species.

Here there was no violent markings on the bones and Shermer did what evolutionists normally do in a situation where reality doesn’t agree with them, they continue with their narrative as though it were fact, this is known in card playing as bluffing. This is why evolution is bad for science. This is why there was also a climategate, where leading advocates of scientists who believe that humans are responsible for global warming tried screwing a decline in temps to make it invisible to the public over a period of ten years because they want the public to think a certain way.

So one has to be careful when reading articles which are stories that are trying to be passed off as science.

First Paper On Pluto Reveals More Complexity

“At 4.5 billion years old, scientists did not expect to find an active dwarf planet, but New Horizons captured a trove of evidence upending this belief.”

-ABC News

“The practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience

-Philosopher of science Karl Popper’s scientific epistemology

When declaring an unfalsifiable theory in this case planet evolution is pseudoscience. The amazing discoveries which have been found so far are a prime example. Evolution always sounds better in story format because one can come up with all kinds of conclusions which are not necessarily true or on the right path, but when it comes to direct observations it is falsified.

The first paper reveals more complexity and a lesson on how a “belief” is in the process of trying to be rescued from evidence that contradicts it. You see scientists who believe in evolution assume or shall I say estimate that Pluto is currently 4.5 billion years old. Many of the secular scientists predicted that Pluto was way past its prime because of its assumed age, so they believed that Pluto would be nothing more than a cold and lifeless planet but still interesting to explore! When New Horizons flew by and was able to start downloading its data (currently only 15 percent has been downloaded so far) we find that the direct observations of Pluto was far from that! So says Alan Stern who is the principal scientist on the New Horizons project, “Finding that Pluto is geologically active after 4.5 billion years…there’s not big enough typeface to write that in.”

New Horizons was also able to capture some amazing data of Pluto’s moons which also doesn’t agree with the assumption of billions of years old. Nix and Hydra have bright surfaces, this presents a major problem for the belief in billions of years old because there is a lot going on externally such as radiation darkening, the transfer of darker material from Charon via impacts, impacts with dark Kuiper Belt meteorites. The evidence suggests youth not old age. It will to be interesting the various stories they will come up with to try to preserve billions of years old that defy common sense.

Pluto has 3-kilometre-high ice mountains, pretty spectacular!  This indicates that Pluto is geologically active, but this presents a major problem for the old age assumption once again, where is the energy that can be sustain over billions of years coming from to create these ice mountains? This is when the storytelling begins, you have one idea that suggests (with no evidence) that uranium is present on Pluto. What do you think is strange about this idea that considers radioactivity as the energy source that supposedly been working over billions of years? Well if the radioactivity is heating the plains why are the ice mountains which are next to it, not affected by it?  Here is an experiment for you, take a piece of ice and place it next to heat and see what happens, then you know I mean :)

The conclusions to keep it so old is not science rather just a belief that they think needs to be preserve otherwise the rest of their theory in other areas of evolution go down too. Pluto is not 4.5 billion years old! Neither are its moons! The new data coming in from New Horizons confirms the Bible more than planet evolution!

New Horizons Makes History With Pluto

After being under the gun to get the spacecraft built within a time frame that would cut the voyage to Pluto by four years, taking off in 2006, then traveling 9+ years in space over the course of more than 3 billion miles faster than any thing made before it, New Horizons makes history by exploring a planet never seen this close by mankind along with its five moons!

Cheers erupted as New Horizons began to communicate with Earth again after being silent for 22 hours because it was programmed to be totally focused on collecting data of Pluto as it flew by!  Currently, most of the data remains on the spacecraft and will take quite some time to transmit it all back to earth. The highest resolution taken so far of Pluto will be released sometime on Wednesday. What an amazing day, what an amazing accomplishment with this intelligently designed spacecraft!

Latest Pluto Image

Encounters like these always presented a challenge for those who believe the solar system is billions of years old. Many predictions have been made on that belief. Pluto is no different…

Once considered an icy, dead world, the planetoid has yielded signs of geological activity, with evidence of past and possibly present-day tectonics, or movements of its crust.”

“This is clearly a world where both geology and atmosphere climatology play a role,” said Alan Stern, New Horizons lead scientist, with the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado. He noted that it appears that nitrogen and methane snow fall on Pluto.

More challenges may include once the data has been transmitted back to Earth: atmospheric escape rates of molecules are found to be too rapid to sustain for billions of years making a confirmation for a younger Pluto than what is believed among secular scientists. This will in turn create a team of planetary scientists who will work hard to come up with something which would put it back to billions of years.

The measurements of Pluto’s atmosphere will be an interesting one especially for creationists. Another challenge that may present itself is…the data will not confirm the moons were formed by collision causing another team of scientists to come up with a way to preserve a popular idea using collision as a cause on how those moons had formed. Unlike Mars, they will be no search for life on Pluto, however, speculation may emerge about life on Pluto in its supposed very distant past, perhaps as a selling point to go to Pluto again. In any case, they don’t need to use a selling point like that, we ought to explore Pluto again, maybe next time send two probes: one that could go in orbit and another on the surface of Pluto!

We are certainly living in some amazing times with all this space exploration, thanks to the Lord :)


Astronomy and Cosmology: Where Are They Now?

Next month is going to be exciting because for the first time in man’s history, we are going to get some secular pictures from the space probe, “New Horizons” . Currently the probe is less than 30 million miles away and has already transmitted some historical pictures of Pluto.

“We can also see that every face of Pluto is different and that Pluto’s northern hemisphere displays substantial dark terrains, though both Pluto’s darkest and its brightest known terrain units are just south of, or on, its equator…”  

-says New Horizons Principal Investigator Alan Stern.

This project without its planetary evolution conclusions is good science. The more probes that are out there, the better we learn what is going on in space. It’s exciting! Star formation on the other hand has been used to mislead the public. There is no doubt that Nature News along with Science Daily and certain Astronomers have committed fraud, perhaps but not exclusive to, for the reason of helping fund these types of projects.

Let’s begin by displaying the headlines:

The first one is from Nature News which is also found in Scientific American as well as in other publications.

“Astronomers Claim to Take First Glimpse of Primordial Stars”

In the Southern European Observatory where the discovery took place makes and even more profound statement in their science release.

“Best Observational Evidence of First Generation Stars in the Universe” 

Wow, it sounds as though a major discovery was made, this could be the hard evidence that certain scientists were looking for, but the question remains. Is it really? Let’s go back to Nature News again…

“Now astronomers think they may have spied a late-blooming cluster of such stars, in the brightest distant galaxy observed to date. The stars, seen as they were when the Universe was around 800 million years old, appear to be primordial in compositionbut also to have formed more recently than some second-generation stars.”

How can these Astronomers claim this discovery to be first generation of stars? ‘Appearing’ to be primordial in composition is not the same as being first generation! These stars are considered younger than second-generation of stars! Not only that, but these stars were discovered in a galaxy which has elements that according to their theory could only have formed well after the first generation of stars!

“That primordial stars should turn up in such a large and already-evolved galaxy presents a challenge to the group’s interpretation.” 

Indeed, but these Astronomers used the classic “fit the data into a theory technique” rather than let the data speak for itself. Here is how they answered the challenge which make stars younger than second generation into first generation…

“Sobral and colleagues suggest that the primordial stars may be late-developers, formed from a cloud of pristine and uncontaminated gas that was prevented from cooling and coalescing by the heat of strong radiation from earlier-blooming stars. “We think we’re seeing the last episode of Population III star formation,” he says.” 

This is a prime example on how some scientists (not all) are misleading the public with their so-called discoveries in Astronomy. There is no real evidence here that would make any logical person to conclude that these stars are first generation. None! The headlines are a bunch of lies!

Moving on to Cosmology…

“As is your habit, you are reading Science at breakfast (today’s treat: an omelet made with dodo eggs). But as soon as you finish this paragraph, a carnivorous wombat crashes through the door into your apartment and chomps angrily on your prehensile tail. Right … now” (No this isn’t Star Wars -emphasis mine).

“Ridiculous? Certainly—here. But it’s true somewhere in the universe, according to many scientists. An increasing number of mainstream physicists have espoused an almost unspeakably bizarre picture of the cosmos, one filled with mirror worlds and parallel universes, with doppelgängers and alternate histories. In many of these parallel universes—countless ones—an exact duplicate of you is doing exactly what you’re doing: reading this article in Science magazine. In others, you exist with subtle (and not-so- subtle) changes from your present-day life—you sport horns or speak in Latin or make a living by juggling hedgehogs at cocktail parties.”

This is a classic of opening your mind to fiction because it may be reality someday. Some of this is used in Hollywood. Bob Berman, wrote a very thought-provoking article in Astronomy magazine (July 2004, page 16) which I quoted some of it once before in 2012, it certainly applies to what is going on now with Cosmology. In fact, he gives a pretty good science lesson.

“The problem in cosmology is that facts are few and the imaginations of people who cook up theories are fertile. We have known for nearly seventy years that the cosmos is expanding. Every measurement made of galaxies showed that everything is moving away from everything else. The picture looked very much like what happens when a firecracker explodes, with material on the outside edge of the object that exploded moving the fastest and material to the inside moving less quickly.

“The term “big bang” or “inflation” was at least partially rooted in this observation. Temperature measurements of intergalactic space supported the theory by being exactly what they should be if the cosmos was infinitely hot and cooled during the expansion of the cosmos. What banged or who banged it was not knowable, and that is where all the theories came from. It is interesting that the Bible agrees with the observation of the expanding universe. Numerous passages in the Bible describe the cosmos as an expanding entity. “God who created the heavens and stretched them out” appears in one way or another over and over in scripture (see Isaiah 42:5; 40:22; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Job 9:8; 37:18; Psalm 104:2; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; Zechariah 12:1).”  

“Many atheists had a problem with the “big bang” concept because it suggested a beginning, and if there was a beginning there had to be a cause which suggested a causer. To get around this problem, it was recognized that since gravity seemed to be a property of mass, everything in the cosmos was attracting everything else, and that meant that eventually gravity would stop the expansion of the universe and pull everything back to a central point. The fact of gravitational attraction seemed sure and the fact that things were coasting from the initial process seemed unquestionable. One could theorize that whatever caused the big bang could happen over and over. This theory was called the oscillating universe theory, and was heavily promoted by leading atheists.”

“There were lots of scientific problems with the oscillating universe theory. Only mass would be affected by gravity and much of the energy in the cosmos was in the form of light which would not be gravitationally susceptible. It also seemed that some objects on the outer edge of the expansion were traveling so fast that they would never be significantly affected by gravity. In spite of these and other problems, the oscillating universe theory was in textbooks and even used by Carl Sagan in his famous Cosmos series in which he compared it to the Hindu concept of reincarnation.”

“In the late 1990s another observation was made by astronomers that totally disrupted this whole picture. It was discovered that the cosmos was not slowing down in its expansion as gravitational effects would have been expected to do, but that the cosmos was actually accelerating in its expansion. This observation has been confirmed by several different methods and is now considered to be a fact. The problem is that the fact that the cosmos is accelerating in its expansion is at odds with everything we can do in the laboratory.”

“What does a good scientist do when confronted with such an astounding fact? The answer should be to propose explanations that are testable and for which experiments can be conducted to see whether or not the proposal is consistent with scientific experiments. The problem with today’s public speakers on this subject is that proposals are being made that have no possible way of being tested, and each pronouncement is made with such pomp and flair that the average reader assumes that not only has the theory been tested, but it has been successful on every point.”

“One proposal has been that 70% of the universe must be made of an antigravity force called dark energy (* which has been adjusted since this article has been written to 95% of the universe. * -emphasis mine). No one knew what it was or how it could exist, but the concept has appeared in hundreds of magazines and newspapers that we have seen. Recently we have seen statements that the dark energy loses its power over time, so eventually the acceleration will stop and the universe will collapse as the oscillating universe theory suggested. There is no evidence of this, and no way of testing it.”

“Some periodicals have said that Einstein’s cosmological constant is what is causing the acceleration of the cosmos. This is a constant that Einstein threw into his equations to make them fit his opinions about the cosmos–an act that he later called his greatest blunder. The problem is that no one has any idea what the constant would represent or be caused by. Now it is fashionable to refer to the “Big Rip.” This is a theory that says that eventually everything will explode–even atoms. Another theory is called “string theory” which assumes that there are eleven spacial dimensions and then suggests that membranes from these other dimensions sometimes touch each other explosively creating things like our universe.”

“Suddenly, we’re imbedded in a frothy quantum foam of unlimited possibilities. It’s a free-for-all where each solemnly presented theory is soon changed or rebutted.. Throw the math this way, that way, tweak the equations, set fire to the physics building, nothing matters. It’s Alice in Wonderland meets Stephen Hawking.”

New proposals about dark matter come out all the time, New Scientist actually asked a valid question, “How long can we keep looking for dark matter?” 

“WE HAVE been aware of the need for dark matter since the 1930s. Without this stuff, we can’t make sense of the rotation of galactic clusters, or how galaxies formed in the first place. And yet, to date, we have found nothing. Even CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, our best and by far most expensive tool for finding it, has so far drawn a blank. How much longer can we keep looking?”

The universe is not making sense for those who believe in non-design. This usually happens when a theory is not true. Does the article answer its own question? No! Rather, it looks for remedies to find dark matter. This is the problem. It is true, it would be hard to pin point an exact time frame but looking more than 80 years with very expensive tools, I would say it is time to move on. There are so many other things in science which requires work that may turn out to be fruitful. I can’t wait till next month! Pluto, here we come! :)

DNA disagrees With Evolutionary Anthropology

Those of us who sat in a public school were taught about evolution. From a biology class to a history class, we all heard the story which includes Neanderthal man. Based on a belief of survival of the fittest, a story about an extinct human species that was believed to be a close relative of modern humans. Creationists believe they are the same species, a group of ancient people. Evolutionists have tried to explain their disappearance by suggesting Neanderthals had a very low-level of intelligence, spoke in grunts, lived in caves most of the time not doing a whole lot, and as a result, not enough for them to survive which is why they say modern humans came along.

As evidence began to surface, this story about Neanderthals which was made up, was not true…Here is one admission from science daily…

“The evidence for cognitive inferiority is simply not there,” said Villa, a curator at the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History. “What we are saying is that the conventional view of Neanderthals is not true.”

“Villa and Roebroeks scrutinized nearly a dozen common explanations for Neanderthal extinction that rely largely on the notion that the Neanderthals were inferior to anatomically modern humans. These include the hypotheses that Neanderthals did not use complex, symbolic communication; that they were less efficient hunters who had inferior weapons; and that they had a narrow diet that put them at a competitive disadvantage to anatomically modern humans, who ate a broad range of things.”

So now they had to readjust their story and came up with a new idea on why Neanderthals disappeared.

“Neanderthals likely interbred and that the resulting male children may have had reduced fertility.”

This conclusion comes with the belief that Neanderthals and modern humans only interbred in the middle east. However, the biggest enemy of their story has been DNA. More DNA has been sequenced. This time from a jawbone which came from a cave in Romania. The reaction to the results was a classic when it comes to falsifications in evolution such as we see in science daily

“Svante Paabo from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology who led the study. “I could hardly believe it when we first saw the results.” 

In live science

“The large spans of Neanderthal-like segments in Oase 1’s genome indicate that one of his human ancestors interbred with a Neanderthal less than 200 years before he lived.”

This is more confirmation that Neanderthals and modern humans are the same species! Also, to suggest organic material like DNA which degrades rather quickly is going to last that long (40,000 years or more) requires more faith than believing in God! The organic material (DNA) is only a few thousand years old. We don’t need to fund research that makes up stories which has been wrong time and time again. The funding could have gone to fighting cancer or developing new technologies rather than creating fictional stories! Evolution hurts science, rarely do they think outside the box. Creation on the other hand, keeps science moving forward!

Why Does Soft Tissue Exist In Fossils?

Prior to 2005, no evolutionary scientist was looking for soft tissue in fossils, it was widely believed it was impossible for it to exist after millions of years due to the fact that soft tissue decays quite rapidly. When soft tissue was accidentally discovered in a fossil of T-Rex, it created controversy among evolutionary scientists but since then the soft tissue discovered in T-Rex was confirmed thus ending controversy and beginning the search for more soft tissue in fossils. And as a result, many more fossils have been discovered with its original soft tissue along with developing improved methods which was unheard of nor was it even remotely considered prior to 2005.

Not only are evolutionists improving the methods for their search for soft tissue in fossils which is great, but also have been focused on explaining how the impossible happened. There have been some very weak explanations, but this latest one is a classic. Remember in the previous post when it was stated that when a fundamental in evolution is falsified, that falsification is added to the theory (becomes a prediction) even though it’s the opposite of what the theory had predicted in the first place, thus preserving the fundamental. This of course doesn’t usually happen in other areas in science, mainly in evolution or other related topics that has to do with some sort of evolution.

Bacteria along with the soft contents as you may or may not know is the main reason why soft tissue breaks down easier as it decays rapidly. Now we have some scientists claiming bacteria is responsible for preserving soft tissue! I kid you not, they are actually claiming this.

Here is what science magazine says…

“The overwhelming majority of organisms will never fossilize. Preservation of an animal’s anatomy in rocks is a rare event requiring a strict set of geologic and chemical conditions. Fossilized soft tissues like skin or muscle are even rarer, as they decay very quickly beyond recognition before mineralization occurs. It would be tempting to assume that microbes—the great mediators of rot and recycling—would be a natural enemy to high-quality fossils, but [Philip] Donoghue’s time spent watching shrimp waste away seems to hint at exactly the opposite.”

The team of researchers were using brine shrimp in their experiment. As expected, the bacteria rendered the soft tissue unrecognizable but in a low oxygen environment the team rationalized, the gut would be the most ideal place where the best preservation would occur.

“The researchers also point out that animals with true “through-guts”—ones that contain both a mouth and an anus—are much more likely to leave behind high-quality fossils than animals like corals and jellyfish, which eat and excrete through the same hole and are home to far fewer bacteria. The evolution of the anus appears to have given rise to a more complex microbiome and, thus, that “definitely increases your chances” of leaving behind an exceptional fossil, Donoghue says.”  

It is assumed that these particular researchers who are considered experts know their fossils such as jellyfish fossils (their bodies are soft) which have been discovered in huge amounts, something that this team says has less chance to be preserved. Remember T-Rex back in 2005? Soft tissues were not discovered in T-Rex’s gut, rather it was red blood cells and osteocytes, discovered in T-Rex’s bone! Again, it is assumed that these researchers are aware of that too. Here is a kicker, Ediacaran fauna (older than the Cambrian explosion) don’t even have guts yet its soft tissue have been discovered all over the world! There are other examples of soft tissue that were not from the gut or mouth of the animal. It is certain that these researchers in particular are aware of these facts as well but is in sell mode with their research.

As a result, it renders the explanation useless!  So why are researchers discovering soft tissue in fossils? The answer is quite simple, the fossils are not millions of years old, only thousands which makes perfect sense with rapid decay. This is also direct proof that the earth is not four billion years old nor are these fossils many millions of years old. Fossils once considered the best piece of evidence for evolution is now actually one of the worst while their explanations are getting weaker.

Is Antibiotic Resistance Proof of Evolution?

Remember when you were in high school or perhaps you are currently in high school as we speak where you have learned about antibiotic resistance? The teacher would allude to this being evolution in action. Certainly in debates this is often time alluded to as evidence for evolution.

In the medical field, antibiotic resistance in some areas have baffled some doctors because the bacteria would respond so quickly, sometimes within the first year or so. Was this evolution and is evolution moving more quickly than previously thought?

Creationists have debated for years that bacteria already have resistance built-in their systems, something has been also admitted by evolutionists…

 “One of the most common evidences used in textbooks to support evolution is antibiotic resistance in bacteria. However, the marvelous ability of bacteria to survive against antibiotics does not support the idea of progressiveevolution at all. Public school textbooks claim that bacteria’s sophisticated capacity to change—which appears to be built into their systems—supports the claim that molecules can change into completely different kinds of creatures, like mosquitoes, mushrooms, and men—despite the fact that these changes require the addition of completely different kinds of genetic information.”

The textbook authors recognize that the resistance is already present in the bacterial population (Fig. 15.5) and then claim that selection for resistant bacteria in a population is direct evidence for evolution. Selecting for something that is already present does not provide support for the information-gaining change required for evolution. Students are left with a confused understanding of evolution and are expected to equate observed changes in bacteria with the conversion of one kind into another.” –Answers in Genesis, May 2007 and January 2009. 

In 2012, antibiotic resistance was confirmed again as a ancient trait because it was discovered in bacteria from an isolated cave in New Mexico, many feet underground.

“A growing body of evidence implicates environmental organisms as reservoirs of these resistance genes; however, the role of anthropogenic use of antibiotics in the emergence of these genes is controversial. (*because it goes against what has been taught as evidence for evolution – *emphasis mine) We report a screen of a sample of the culturable microbiome of Lechuguilla Cave, New Mexico, in a region of the cave that has been isolated for over 4 million years. We report that, like surface microbes, these bacteria were highly resistant to antibiotics; some strains were resistant to 14 different commercially available antibiotics. … This supports a growing understanding that antibiotic resistance is natural, ancient, and hard-wired in the microbial pangenome.”

Moreover there was research conducted recently which uncovered a tribe of humans known as Yanomami people who live in a remote region of Venezuela. These people haven’t been in contact with the outside world, yet…it was discovered that these people have bacteria that already had antibiotic resistance genes—including the ability to fight synthetic antibiotics!

In Science Magazine

“The medical team’s interviews with these Yanomami villagers found they were never given drugs or exposed to food or water with antibiotics. Instead, Dantas suggests that the Yanomami gut bacteria have evolved an armory of methods to fight a wide range of toxins that threaten them—just as our ancestors and other primates have done to fight dangerous microbes. For example, the Yanomami bacteria may already have encountered toxins that occur naturally in their environment that are similar in molecular structure to modern antibiotics, but have yet to be discovered by scientists. Or, gut bacteria in humans have evolved a generalized mechanism for detecting certain features shared by all antibiotics—including the synthetic ones designed by scientists—and so can mount a defense against new threats.”

The discovery is troubling because it suggests that “antibiotic resistance is ancient, diverse, and astonishingly widespread in nature—including within our own bodies,” says anthropologist Christina Warinner of the University of Oklahoma in Norman, who is not a co-author. “Such findings and their implications explain why antibiotic resistance was so quick to develop after the introduction of therapeutic antibiotics, and why we today should be very concerned about the proper use and management of antibiotics in both clinical and agricultural contexts.”

This may explain why bacteria reacts so quickly and undermines a basic premise about evolution. One thing to note however, bacteria is not all bad, in fact we couldn’t exist without most bacteria. While it benefits us, it benefits them as well. This was no discovery for evolution but increased knowledge on how bacteria works…:)