First, the claim is not that microbes evolved in response to humans. They appeared much before us. The assumption presented here is that some microbes have evolved in ways, recently, that let them (also) attack humans.
Second, yes, it is very natural for us to assume that when we see an effective reproducing pathogen that affects us, that it has evolved to attack us. That is the case with most viruses affecting humans, as the article mentions - everything in the article about coincidence has nothing to do with viruses. (Sometimes a virus is zoonotic, i.e. originated in another species, but has then adapted significantly to us.)
To be effective against humans, typically the pathogen needs to evolve to do so. That is a very reasonable assumption, and yes, we have been making it, and for rational reasons. Interestingly, it turns out that for some bacteria, it is not the case, as the article shows.
Well, yes. I did and I appreciate this correction. Another fine example of the fact that correlation is not necessarily causation. One our old brains are incredibly prone to overlook.
azakai|11 years ago
Second, yes, it is very natural for us to assume that when we see an effective reproducing pathogen that affects us, that it has evolved to attack us. That is the case with most viruses affecting humans, as the article mentions - everything in the article about coincidence has nothing to do with viruses. (Sometimes a virus is zoonotic, i.e. originated in another species, but has then adapted significantly to us.)
To be effective against humans, typically the pathogen needs to evolve to do so. That is a very reasonable assumption, and yes, we have been making it, and for rational reasons. Interestingly, it turns out that for some bacteria, it is not the case, as the article shows.
kryptiskt|11 years ago
DonGateley|11 years ago