Originally posted by Metal Brain
The livescience article admits nobody is sure it is the fruit bats, but it is clearly a popular theory.
The fruit bats should be tested for virus' to see how many they have and try to confirm the theory. Not doing so would be foolish in my opinion. If some guy butchers a fruit bat and gets an entirely new strain of ebola I think it would be good to know about that other strain before that guy gets infected.
The livescience article admits nobody is sure it is the fruit bats, but it is clearly a popular theory.
I am no expert on this but, judging from what I have read so far, although it by far isn't absolutely certain, it seems to be the best theory based on the current evidence. See:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/virus/filo/bats.html
“...Evidence Supporting Bats as the Vector …
…
...”
although that link also gives “..Evidence Against Bats as the Vector ...”, this evidence doesn't in any way imply that abola could be native to humans.
And, if it isn't coming from the bats, then it must be coming from some other non-human animal onto humans.
Either way, whether it comes from the bats or some other non-human animal, it isn't native to humans and thus hasn't evolved in humans but rather evolved in other animals over a long time period and then occasionally accidentally infects humans.
The fruit bats should be tested for virus'
they already have been. But, unfortunately, the results tend to be extremely difficult to interpret esp conclusively. The tests generally, at best, would give probabilities rather than hard facts on whether the first humans to become infected got it from the bats. This is because, if the bats tested negative for abola, that just could be because the particular individual bats tested didn't have it but some other untested bat has it or at least did have it. Obviously, it generally wouldn't be practical to test the entire bat population! So it is perfectly possible for the tests to miss infected bats. And, even when the bats have tested positive for the virus, that doesn't necessarily mean the first people to become infected got it from that bat population; why couldn't they got it from some other type of animal? -the bats having it could quite credibly be coincidence and not a particularly big coincidence at that!
So I hope you see the problem here with how to interpret such test results scientifically!
I suppose the only way we can be pretty sure it came from a bat is if the first person to become infected was known to have come in contact with a bat that was then tested for abola and tested positive and with exactly the same strain! -then there could be little doubt unless you are to believe it was a massive coincidence because he actually got it from another animal! (I wouldn't buy that )