-3
$\begingroup$

There was this study but the conclusion and it's source's relability seemed a bit off. How come a house flies one wing contain all microbe and the other don't.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In addition to @S Pr's answer, what would possibly be an evolutionary reason for flies to "care" what the microbes on their bodies do? Seems much more likely that the presence of microbes on flies is purely accidental: they just stick to the fly's feet & mouthparts when the fly feeds. $\endgroup$
    – jamesqf
    May 14 at 17:37
  • $\begingroup$ Curiously, there is interest and research on how microbes and microbiota affect feeding, courting/sexual fitness and aggregation. Microbes also can alter social communication in Drosophila. Whether or not flies care or do anything about it is not yet abundantly clear, but there is a clear relation between microbes and Drosophila emerging in recent years. So the question is really interesting; the paper liked by OP is the exact opposite of what is interesting in the field! $\endgroup$
    – S Pr
    May 17 at 7:53
10
$\begingroup$

Does one wing of fly contain harmful microbes and the other contain only antibodies?

False.

A healthy microdose of skepticism is all you would ever need here. It's just a silly attempt to prove a literal interpretation of a religious text with minimal effort.

Unfortunately, the paper looks, reads, and smells like a joke. Ignoring its nonsensical title and its unintelligible sentences, it is most clearly a rather transparent attempt at indoctrination and evangelism. It is a very dirty attempt to disguise ideology as science. It does this so poorly however, that both honest laymen and honest scientists would be able to spot it within a few seconds of looking at the paper.

It is absent of properly carried out science, but it does look like a phoney mock-up of it. The "biology" contained within is completely laughable, I'm sorry to say. One example of it is the pretend experiment with an n of 1, its lack of controls, and its method section that doesn't indicate anything pertinent. Something about the use of a microscope, but an appeal to simply looking at the tubes which are photographed under some very funny backgrounds and lighting.

Personally I don't recognize the journal, it seems that it may be a fake/predatory journal, and it has been discountinued in Scopus in 2014 for whatever reason. My favorite parts? The research question:

The aim of this research was to clarify the miracle in the hadeeth
of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) by studying the antimicrobial effect of the fly wings. And to understand this aspect from the scientific point of view.

And the grand conclusion at the end of the discussion:

Also this information has not been discovered only a few years ago. this speech testifies the honesty of our prophet (PBUH)band also it contain a replay to any one claiming that the talks of prophet are full of myths moreover every word uttered by him is right from God the almighty

I would gladly replicate this experiment for you (and the original author), it would hardly take two minutes of work (separating wings from 4 flies)... but I don't know if it would even be worth the time for any other reason than pure entertainment. This is obvious fraud and I post this answer only because the hilarity of the "paper" inspired me to. I have never stumbled onto this kind of research before, it's... perspective-building to say the least.

PS. I checked the ORCID of the author, I can find no publications that they claim to have published in journals, except for what you can find on ResearchGate. Most of the links are false links. Claims also to be a world academic champion in 2017 in microbiology (veterinary medicine), whatever that means. Claims to be a professor at Shaqra University. Can't find them on the official staff list of the university. Also, self-described:

She is the World Academic Championship 2017 in microbiology and she was recognized as among World's 500 Most Influential Experts in Microbiology for the Year 2017 on Earth according to International Agency for Standards and Ratings

Hilarious!

PSS. Found a correspondence address to the author where they seems to have photoshopped some of their 'work' onto a blank journal page with formatting. I will ask the author on your behalf and let you know what they think of your question. I hope for a swift reply!

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ what about this paper ? I know it sound weird for me to ask this questions but ı see a lot of papers like this. @S Pr $\endgroup$
    – Pinus
    May 15 at 11:34
  • $\begingroup$ Nope, it's all religious zealotry. No scientific basis. I guarantee you that if i were to replicate the experiment, and falsify the results, the original authors would not accept the null hypothesis (that their religious verses are evidently falsifiable myths). That would be the honest test. Scientific papers look very different and are more rigorous. I see you are very new to scientific literature. Perhaps have a browse and see how good peer-reviewed science even looks; a simple bar chart is really not enough for any argument to hold. $\endgroup$
    – S Pr
    May 17 at 7:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.