4 ms·
It is scary because the gut microbiome in humans is evolving much faster in recent times. This is coming from a study that maps evolution of gut microbiome in p
by potamic 4y ago
It is scary because the gut microbiome in humans is evolving much faster in recent times. This is coming from a study that maps evolution of gut microbiome in primates to the primate evolutionary tree. They found that families of gut bacteria can be passed down over millions of years in a species. The gut microbiome has always coevolved with the species. As the species diverges, so does the microbiome adapting to the changes in the host. Except in modern humans, where it is evolving at a much faster rate since industrialization. It's a very interesting observation in my opinion and asks important questions about how the modern lifestyle is affecting the biome. For instance, what happens if a pregnant mother takes antibiotics? Will a family of bacteria get killed off in that mother's evolutionary branch?
The article is most certainly popsci and written for laymen, but I don't think it is trash at all. Not sure why you think so. It highlights some very interesting discoveries and offers you a window to dive in and learn more things on the subject if you are interested.
- mulmen 4y agoConsider my comment as feedback from an editor to the author. I don’t think this is fit to print. I agree with you. This could be an interesting topic. But the article provides no substantive information. Anything that is learned will be in spite of this article, not because of it. What you describe is the potential that I maintain this article fails to live up to. > It's a very interesting observation in my opinion and asks important questions about how the modern lifestyle is affecting the biome. For instance, what happens if a pregnant mother takes antibiotics? Will a family of bacteria get killed off in that mother's evolutionary branch? That’s a great question! But it isn’t in the article.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Agamus 4y agoI'm not trying to be snarky, and while I largely agree with you, I feel like I'm missing something. Are you saying that the only time that it is 'fit to print' something about this topic is when we have arrived at the conclusion, and are ready to present objective facts? Or, perhaps we shouldn't print speculation about interesting topics unless we have the answers to the questions being discussed? Or, print should be reserved objective facts? I agree that hyperbole like "scary" are confusing to many people. But in this case, I think the scientist is appealing to slang in an effort to communicate with non-scientists.
- sol_invictus 4y agoOP understands neither science nor complex systems. Science is never ”ready” so by their logic nothing would ever get published, and something as integral to human ”system” as the gut microbiome being reduced to half can have dramatic nonlinear effects to health, making an alarmist approach 100% valid
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4y ago> OP understands neither science nor complex systems. This seems like an uncharitable take. I can't imagine how an alarmist approach is "100% valid" when there are not any known problems caused by this. The article is only stating that living in urban environments is correlated with a decrease (by A Lot) in gut microbes. Even if it is true that a significant decrease in gut microbes is a Bad Thing, the article does not argue that well. Indeed, it seems to intend to argue that with little or no substance. > Consider [OP's] comment as feedback from an editor to the author. If the comments are just criticisms about the content in the article then they seem apt. Many of the points hold up when I am critical about the article's arguments. It's possible to argue that position and also be in favor of publishing this information.