Researchers suggest that fire caused the tuberculosis bacteria to become dangerous to humans. I wish these people would do something different than suggest things. And I wish they would come with something better than absurd fantasies that have nothing to do with any science whatsoever.
“Fire brought warmth and comfort to early humans” Here we already get two assumptions. The assumption that there was something like “early humans”, who obviously were different from humans now. And then there is the pretty absurd assumption that fire has not always been there. If you believe in evolution then you believe in a Big Bang. That Big Bang was unlikely to happen without it causing fire. The idea that fire at some point just happened or that people discovered it is completely absurd.
“could have created the ideal conditions” Could I suggest that you present me some facts? “for tuberculosis to mutate from a harmless soil bacterium into our number one bacterial killer” Wrong again. Many people carry the tuberculosis bacteria in their lungs without ever getting sick. To them it’s a completely harmless bacterium. It’s not the bacteria that kill the people, it’s bad living circumstances. The solution cannot be found in a science lab, but in politics. As soon as people get clean water, good food and peace they don’t get tuberculosis anymore. Oops. That’s such an inconvenient fact for scientists.
“according to the researchers’ data model.” Sigh. Researchers love their models and refuse to see that the model is only as good as the data you put into it. Rubbish in, rubbish out. If you only feed the computer the data that suit you then it’s not so strange that you get an outcome that suits you. But usually those models appear to be completely wrong. But that hasn’t stopped researchers from using them.
“long-standing interest in the evolution of disease-causing microorganisms such as tuberculosis” That assumes that there are diseases-causing microorganisms and that they evolve. Professor Tanaka, can you give me a little bit of proof for these assumptions? A special interest in fantasies does not sound very scientific.
“said archaeological and molecular evidence indicated” “indicated” isn’t a word I see a lot in all these articles about scientific topics. But whatever they found, it’s based on assumptions. Without proof for those assumptions any findings are useless and worthless. “While the date of the earliest use of fire is also subject to debate” That’s only debatable for dumbo’s who have absolutely no idea about nature, or science. Or history. Or archaeology.
“But he said the idea that controlled fire enabled the emergence of tuberculosis was certainly plausible” Dr. Mitchell, this is only plausible if you ignore all the facts that go against this theory. This only make sense if you strictly adhere to fantasies, assumptions and biases at the expense of all science and common sense.
And this kind of rubbish is published in a scientific magazine. Of course since I started this blog I paid more and more attention to all kinds of scientific nonsense. But I do feel like the scientific research is getting more useless every week and it really seems that scientists need to make bigger and bigger efforts to produce something that doesn’t sound too absurd. To be honest, I don’t quite understand why anyone would want to spend their life doing such completely useless work. It must pay well at the top and young scientists must keep themselves going with the idea that some day they will make a lot of money. Or maybe they just really don’t see how dumb they are. But I do feel sorry for people who fool themselves that badly.