4 ms·

I know the article tries to explain things in a way a layman can understand, but the wording when it comes to evolution is quite poorly chosen IMO. Saying think

by felxh 13y ago

I know the article tries to explain things in a way a layman can understand, but the wording when it comes to evolution is quite poorly chosen IMO. Saying thinks like 'Bacteria, like any living organism, want to survive' and 'bacteria will always change in order to survive', are just incorrect and will result in big misconceptions. To my knowledge, bacteria don't have an agenda, they don't want to survive and they certainly don't change in order to survive. Instead, they change at random, which sometimes helps an individual to survive and sometimes not.

leephillips 13y ago
I wouldn't be so hard on him. Teaching physics, we often find ourselves saying things like "the ball wants to roll down the hill". It seems to be natural to talk in terms of agency when trying to make concepts intelligible to the relative layman.
- flatline 13y ago
  Yes, but the ball rolling down the hill is not very contentious, whereas evolution is (at least in the US), and wrongness explaining it makes dismissing it easier.
bad_user 13y ago
It's very hard to get the phrasing right. There's always a certain amount of random mutation going on, which can lead to better fitness (or not). However individuals with better fitness end up reproducing more, so mutations that lead to such better outcomes end up surviving. This coupled with multiple ways that bacterias can use to protect themselves against antibiotics, like enzymes, better shielding, or even pumping the antibiotics out, also increases the chance for successful mutations. And they've also developed this mechanism for spreading their DNA around to other bacterias. The result is almost the same as if bacterias would have an agenda. Although it can happen for mutations to lead to worse fitness in contact with older and forgotten antibiotics. And it can also happen for these random mutations to drive a whole population to extinction. But these two outcomes have a much lower probability than bacterias becoming highly resistant to all antibiotics.
ronaldx 13y ago
I don't see why we can apply these words and ideas to humans but not to bacteria. Our feelings (wants) and actions are a result of evolution just the same as bacterial action. We may choose not to ascribe feelings to bacteria, but the origin of the motivation is precisely the same as it is in humans - the motivation to survive and reproduce is universal to organisms.

by felxh 13y ago

leephillips 13y ago

I wouldn't be so hard on him. Teaching physics, we often find ourselves saying things like "the ball wants to roll down the hill". It seems to be natural to talk in terms of agency when trying to make concepts intelligible to the relative layman.

flatline 13y ago
Yes, but the ball rolling down the hill is not very contentious, whereas evolution is (at least in the US), and wrongness explaining it makes dismissing it easier.

bad_user 13y ago

It's very hard to get the phrasing right. There's always a certain amount of random mutation going on, which can lead to better fitness (or not). However individuals with better fitness end up reproducing more, so mutations that lead to such better outcomes end up surviving. This coupled with multiple ways that bacterias can use to protect themselves against antibiotics, like enzymes, better shielding, or even pumping the antibiotics out, also increases the chance for successful mutations. And they've also developed this mechanism for spreading their DNA around to other bacterias. The result is almost the same as if bacterias would have an agenda. Although it can happen for mutations to lead to worse fitness in contact with older and forgotten antibiotics. And it can also happen for these random mutations to drive a whole population to extinction. But these two outcomes have a much lower probability than bacterias becoming highly resistant to all antibiotics.

ronaldx 13y ago

I don't see why we can apply these words and ideas to humans but not to bacteria. Our feelings (wants) and actions are a result of evolution just the same as bacterial action. We may choose not to ascribe feelings to bacteria, but the origin of the motivation is precisely the same as it is in humans - the motivation to survive and reproduce is universal to organisms.