You are completely right in that bacteria don't have the ability to "want" things since they don't have any kind of brain. However, desire is a useful way for the general public to understand what is happening. It's like saying "Water wants to flow to the lowest point of a room" or "The arrow wants to follow the path of least air resistance"
It's not an inability to understand you're seeing, it's a rejection of it because it misleads people. Pendants attack such language precisely because it's misleading without cause. There's no reason to personify random processes and doing so actively misleads people.
Where's your evidence that people are mislead? I don't have any data either, but I suspect exactly zero people came away thinking that bacteria have conscious desires, just like zero people believe that wind actually bites or people actually get butterflies in their stomach.
Yea, like zero people believe water has memory or zero people believe the earth is 6000 years old. Open your eyes, people believe shit they hear that's absurd constantly and in my anecdotal experience maybe 1 in 8 people I've met understood evolution. But maybe you don't live in a red state.
That's your opinion, not mine; however it's exactly talk like this that has led to most laymen not understanding evolution. They don't get that it's being dumbed down for them and that's not their fault, it's the fault of people who casually anthropomorphize things because they wrongly think it helps to clarify; it does not.
Understanding comes from truth, not casual simplifying lies.
You place a large hindrance on discussion if you require every discussion that mentions natural selection to give an entire introductory lesson on evolution. It's a ridiculous notion, especially when there is unlikely to be any misconceptions taken from this article. The purpose of the article was to explain why bacteria become resistant to antibiotics and how our use of antibiotics has led to this, and it does a fine job of that even if some uneducated people still can't describe the modern evolutnary synthesis.
I require no such thing, it is possible to have the same discussion without the unnecessary personification of bacterial wants. It adds nothing to the conversation to say bacteria wants rather than the fit survive.
"Desire" implies that the bacteria is acting purposefully and planning ahead. This isn't what's happening unless you attribute the bacteria's activity to some sort of intelligence.
On the contrary, we eliminated smallpox which was one of the most devastating diseases in history so this fatalism is basically disproved. More depressingly, we've also made extinct thousands of species who have not evolved to resist us.
That comment digressed to discuss whether or not evolution plans ahead and "eventually discovers ways to overcome" as implied by the OP. Keep up with the topic :)
The bacteria is acting purposefully I guess in the same sense that a hammer acts purposefully to drive down a nail. I don't know if that's a correct usage of language or not but it's essentially the same thing. But it is correct to say the hammer's purpose is to drive down the nail, and the bacteria's purpose is to survive and reproduce successfully.
So what if a species goes extinct? That doesn't mean it can't evolve, only that it didn't adapt quickly enough.
> However, desire is a useful way for the general public to understand what is happening.
No it isn't, it's misleading.
> It's like saying "Water wants to flow to the lowest point of a room"
Equally unnecessarily misleading. Water doesn't want anything, and before you claim people understand that let me tell you, they don't. It's a common belief that water has memory, there's an entire industry based on the concept and people fall for it. Walk into any grocery store and there are shelves of very expensive little bottles of water (homeopathy) being sold as cures for all kinds of things, it's disgusting.
> or "The arrow wants to follow the path of least air resistance"
Also unnecessarily misleading. Such talk may be fine among experts who "get" that's it's not accurate, but when talking to general public one should speak accurately, not loosely and "hope" they get it because the reality is many if not most don't and take what you say quite literally.
Bacteria don't 'want' anything in a purely technical sense. But they will eventually develop/are developing resistance to antibiotics anyway. You seem to be stuck in debating about the right sentences to describe that.
Semantics matter, communication is not possible without agreement on the meaning of words. And the OP made the argument, not me, I'm simply agreeing with his point that's it's wrong to personify evolution, it's why so many people don't understand it.
It's far worse than that. Not on;y is it not possible to have semantic communication without a general agreement on the meaning of words, but at the same time perfect agreement is impossible. This is generally understood (and has been understood for a hundred years) to be one of the causes of linguistic drift.
No they aren't, which is why it's even more important to make sure we're actually talking about the same things. Semantics matter. I tire of people insisting that I know what they mean when what it's not what they said. I don't read minds, I hear words; the words you choose have meanings and those meanings matter if you want to convey your ideas to me.
> which is why it's even more important to make sure we're actually talking about the same things.
To some extent, but it is also impossible to do so perfectly.
> Semantics matter.
Semantic agreement is limited to the actual parties to the communication, and by ___location, place, time, and social context. You wouldn't explain something to a 5 year old the way you would a 25 year old and the same basic problems occur when you cross cultural or temporal boundaries.
When linguists discuss language, they usually start by pointing out that human language is defined by usage, not by prescriptions regarding definitions or grammar. This is a critical difference between natural languages and computer languages. Computer languages rigidly conform to specifications. Natural languages only approximate the rules we use to describe them.
So I think you are expecting too much from human communications.
