On Darwinism

[Orton's Arm]

Let me give this another shot...

 

A lot of talk about how humans are evolving...but it's not Darwinian, or neo-Darwinian evolution that we are talking about.

This is one of the finest posts I've seen on these boards. Thanks, and keep up the good work.

[Orton's Arm]

Evolution isn't a progression from lower to higher forms of life. It's the environmentally-based selection of traits best suited to survival in that environment. In other words, if you're born into really horrible conditions, the phenotype most able to survive those horrible conditions will be selected for more often than not.

 

There's no absolute measure of "genetic quality", despite the drivel morons like you and Holcomb's Arm keep shoveling. The only measure of genetic success is how well it survives in the environment in which it is placed. Period. If you don't believe me, tie lead weights to your feet, jump in the ocean, and ask the nearest fish which one of you has more "genetic quality".

One of your more annoying habits--and you have many--is to assume ignorance or stupidity where there is none. Woolley's post pointed out Darwinistic forces no longer promote a human gene pool with traits traditionally associated with genetic fitness. Instead of accusing him of "retardation"--as you for some reason insisted on doing--you should be congratuating him for having grasped a concept beyond the ken of most people.

 

You correctly imply Darwinistic mechanisms are positive, not normative--that is, they describe the way the gene pool will change, not the way it should change. Both Woolley and I understood that already. But that doesn't mean that I, at least, am happy with the way human genetic change is going. I see two different thresholds: the lower one is where humanity is smart enough to chop down trees, burn fossil fuels, create pollution, and do other things to mess up the environment. The higher threshold is where humanity develops alternative fuels, controls pollution, and develops viable off-world colonies. Due to the decline in the genetic basis for intelligence, it will be very difficult for humanity to reach this second threshold. Or, having reached it, it will be difficult to sustain it in very many places; or throughout very much of the global economy. Humanity could very easily go extinct as a result of falling between these two thresholds.

[Ramius]

Due to the decline in the genetic basis for intelligence, it will be very difficult for humanity to reach this second threshold. Or, having reached it, it will be difficult to sustain it in very many places; or throughout very much of the global economy. Humanity could very easily go extinct as a result of falling between these two thresholds.

 

Some days i really wonder where you pull this sh-- from.

 

First off, where the hell does this claim of "decline in genetic basis for intelligence" come from? and dont even bring up your worthless bull sh-- about IQ and regression to the mean. this topic has nothing to do with that. right here we are dealing with your complete inability to understand genetics.

 

Survival is the name of the game, not technological advancement. I play along with your boneheaded claims for a minute. If a disease comes along and wipes out all people that are highly intelligent, guess what? that means that stupid people are better fit to survive in the world. This isnt going to cause humanity to go extinct, it will merely change the shape of the human population.

 

If we pollute the air with so many fossil fuels and such, and kill off a ton of people, whos going to survive? the people best able to adapt to the changing environment. Little history lesson here: a few billion years ago, the earth was being polluted with this toxic gas. it was getting to dangerous levels. what happend? species evolved to survive cope with these conditions and it had nothing to do with intelligence. this toxic gas was called oxygen.

 

Frankly tho, if human extinction meant you wouldnt be able to post, and thereby an end to all your worthless nonsensical ideas, i'm all for it.

[DC Tom]

First off, where the hell does this claim of "decline in genetic basis for intelligence" come from? and dont even bring up your worthless bull sh-- about IQ and regression to the mean. this topic has nothing to do with that. right here we are dealing with your complete inability to understand genetics.

 

It's because modern democracy doesn't do an effective job of protecting the gene pool, so smart people - who aren't actually all that smart, since they're in error - don't breed kids with the same propensity for error.

 

Why are you even bothering?

[woolley]

Cheers Holcomb!

 

Now that we have that cleared up...I think the point can be made real succinctly. Human evolution is a *real* thing, and is not determined or driven by classical Darwinian mechanisms. *edit to add* It's OK to talk about human evolution in a way that has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution, because in a sense we have conquered it.

 

As for judging genes...why not? Some people have terrific eyesight, some people have horrible eyesight (like myself). Mine is a genetic deficiency, but it is maksed by technology. Without technology, it would be a genetic deficiency which will also leave me at a fitness disadvantage. I am of the opinion that it is OK to declare genetic deficiencies while realizing that they may not be realized as such when measured by reproductive fitness. Why? Because of technology. And that reality is more real to our species today than Darwinian evolution.

 

But that doesn't mean that I, at least, am happy with the way human genetic change is going. I see two different thresholds: the lower one is where humanity is smart enough to chop down trees, burn fossil fuels, create pollution, and do other things to mess up the environment. The higher threshold is where humanity develops alternative fuels, controls pollution, and develops viable off-world colonies. Due to the decline in the genetic basis for intelligence, it will be very difficult for humanity to reach this second threshold.

 

This is interesting...I think you're saying that humans aren't becoming *inherently or essentially* smarter, simply as determined by the genes which are behind the design of our brains.

 

Human knowledge, it can be said, is by and large independent of our brains (although it takes a brain to interact with the knowledge). I know nothing about auto repair, but give me enough books and instructions guides and I can get by. Maybe that's not a good example. Where intelligence would come into play would be in the forward thinking department. Now, I don't know if forward thinking is an acquired trait or not (I suspect that it is), but yours is an interesting point.

 

-Woolley

[woolley]

First off, where the hell does this claim of "decline in genetic basis for intelligence" come from? and dont even bring up your worthless bull sh-- about IQ and regression to the mean. this topic has nothing to do with that. right here we are dealing with your complete inability to understand genetics.

 

I would have used the word stasis meself, but don't miss his point by getting stuck on that one phrase. Or do.

 

Survival is the name of the game, not technological advancement.

They are so intertwined though, right? How do people survive cancer, or AIDS, if not technological advancement? How many children have survived illnesses that would have been fatal hundreds of years ago, but for technological advancement?

 

I play along with your boneheaded claims for a minute. If a disease comes along and wipes out all people that are highly intelligent, guess what? that means that stupid people are better fit to survive in the world.

 

I get your point. Survivors survive, basically. A couple things. First, your example is quite extraordinary...you probably can't even articulate a mechanism for how such a disease would wipe out the intelligent. And then you ignore technology, where perhaps we could use our brains to fight such a disease.

 

Fitness, it is true, is contingent on the reality of the day. Yet we will make statements and predictions based on what we know. That's a reasonable thing to do, don't you think? If what we know changes, then our statements will change. I insist that there's nothing wrong with saying that highly intelligent people are better off, when it comes to surviving sans technology, than less intelligent people. I base that on what I know. If that gets you all hot and bothered I'm sorry about that. I get your theoretical point (even though it's highly speculative and ill-defined), it's similar to an asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs, if it happens it happens, but for the tiny speck of the millions of years between such events I'll work with what is happening around me.

 

If we pollute the air with so many fossil fuels and such, and kill off a ton of people, whos going to survive? the people best able to adapt to the changing environment.

Right. The rich...those who can afford air filtration systems or homes that shield from deadly rays, those who can afford to move to places where the climate is most condusive to good living. And technology will keep such people alive. You're not making a point in your favor here.

 

Little history lesson here: a few billion years ago, the earth was being polluted with this toxic gas. it was getting to dangerous levels. what happend? species evolved to survive cope with these conditions and it had nothing to do with intelligence. this toxic gas was called oxygen.

 

No technology back then, which is just as important a condition as, oh I don't know, say a disease that kills all intelligent people. It also happens to be a *real* condition, and not a theoretical one.

 

And neither Holcomb or myself are contradicting any of these specifics, I think we understand evolution in a world void of technology just fine. You seem to disagree, which is fine I guess.

 

Frankly tho, if human extinction meant you wouldnt be able to post, and thereby an end to all your worthless nonsensical ideas, i'm all for it.

 

Sheesh, use your brain and exercise the ignore option when it comes to any given poster. Overcome the learned helplessness you are displaying. Discard your fear of technology and *use* it, it will make you happier.

 

-Woolley

[Ramius]

not determined or driven by classical Darwinian mechanisms.

 

 

As for judging genes...why not? Some people have terrific eyesight, some people have horrible eyesight (like myself). Mine is a genetic deficiency, but it is maksed by technology. Without technology, it would be a genetic deficiency which will also leave me at a fitness disadvantage. I am of the opinion that it is OK to declare genetic deficiencies while realizing that they may not be realized as such when measured by reproductive fitness. Why? Because of technology. And that reality is more real to our species today than Darwinian evolution.

 

awww, how cute. holcomb has a little butt-buddy.

 

Of course, some might call sickle cell anemia a "genetic defect" Others might call it a good way to survive from malaria.

[woolley]

It's because modern democracy doesn't do an effective job of protecting the gene pool, so smart people - who aren't actually all that smart, since they're in error - don't breed kids with the same propensity for error.

 

Why are you even bothering?

 

Why are you even bothering to ask why he is even bothering?

 

Because it makes both of you feel better about yourselves to be dismissive of others.

 

A teeny wee bit sorry to respond to your rhetorical question, won't happen again.

 

-Woolley

[woolley]

Of course, some might call sickle cell anemia a "genetic defect" Others might call it a good way to survive from malaria.

 

The best way to survive from malaria is by using technology.

 

http://www.malaria.org/DDTpage.html

 

You'll note that there is no outcry for genetic engineering which will promote more sickle cell anemia in newborns. You're welcome to start such an outcry of course.

 

Also, sickle cell anemia is *accurately* defined as a blood disorder (feel free to petition the various universities and institutes behind such a horribly prejudicial view) and those who have full-blown sickle cell anemia have a real rough go. You've even got people trying to cure the wonderful thing. The bastards!

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?...=gnd.section.98

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000527.htm

http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/malaria_sickle.html

 

Sarcasm aside...your example confirms the technology point. Malaria is being eliminated not by promoting sickle cell, but finding ways to technologically destroy the mosquitos who spread malaria. Yes, sickle cell promoted *some* survival success in technologically-free parts of the world where malaria was rampant. Yet malaria remained rampant. We can actualy wipe malaria out (with DDT, who woulda thunk) with technology. Viva la revolucion!

 

-Woolley

[DC Tom]

Why are you even bothering to ask why he is even bothering?

 

Because he knows better. Natural law doesn't work the same way in the Holcombiverse as it does for real people.

 

Because it makes both of you feel better about yourselves to be dismissive of others.

 

Nope. I actually feel pretty good about myself. I uncharitably submit that this is because I have a real life.

[DC Tom]

awww, how cute. holcomb has a little butt-buddy.

 

Of course, some might call sickle cell anemia a "genetic defect" Others might call it a good way to survive from malaria.

 

Some also might call the development of the technology to combat malaria an evolutionary response to environmental pressure in an almost classical Darwinistic sense. Others, though, prefer to espouse anthropocentric bull sh-- as though it's science.

[woolley]

Some also might call the development of the technology to combat malaria an evolutionary response to environmental pressure in an almost classical Darwinistic sense. Others, though, prefer to espouse anthropocentric bull sh-- as though it's science.

 

I agree that technology and science are not the same thing. As for anthropocentrism, well, that is the driving force behind technology, so I guess you got me there.

 

-Woolley

[Orton's Arm]

Some days i really wonder where you pull this sh-- from.

 

First off, where the hell does this claim of "decline in genetic basis for intelligence" come from? and dont even bring up your worthless bull sh-- about IQ and regression to the mean. this topic has nothing to do with that. right here we are dealing with your complete inability to understand genetics.

 

Survival is the name of the game, not technological advancement. I play along with your boneheaded claims for a minute. If a disease comes along and wipes out all people that are highly intelligent, guess what? that means that stupid people are better fit to survive in the world. This isnt going to cause humanity to go extinct, it will merely change the shape of the human population.

 

If we pollute the air with so many fossil fuels and such, and kill off a ton of people, whos going to survive? the people best able to adapt to the changing environment. Little history lesson here: a few billion years ago, the earth was being polluted with this toxic gas. it was getting to dangerous levels. what happend? species evolved to survive cope with these conditions and it had nothing to do with intelligence. this toxic gas was called oxygen.

 

Frankly tho, if human extinction meant you wouldnt be able to post, and thereby an end to all your worthless nonsensical ideas, i'm all for it.

In the midst of throwing stupid accusations against me, you somehow managed to ask a legitimate question. That's a step up for you.

 

In answer to your question, the genetic basis for intelligence is declining because smart women are choosing to have fewer children than less intelligent women.

 

I'd like to add that a trait which is positively selected for at an individual level may be negative for the group as a whole. Consider, for example, a mutation in a harmful bacterium. The normal strain of bacterium is mildly harmful to people, but allows them to live out normal lives. The mutant strain reproduces much faster, and thereby kills its hosts relatively quickly. Suppose you are injected with a solution of bacteria that's 99% normal, and 1% mutant. Over the course of your infection, the percentage of mutant bacteria will rise quickly, because the mutants reproduce so much faster. Just based on this changing percentage, it would appear the mutant strain is more genetically fit. But here's the catch: the mutant strain destroys its hosts, whereas the normal strain does not. Over the course of thousands of years, and a countless number of infections, the normal strain of bacterium has a much better chance of survival than does the mutant strain.

 

Suppose Planets A and B both happen to have a modern technology level; and are too far away to interact with each other. Planet A is populated with people who are smart enough to continue using their environmentally destructive technology, but not smart enough to improve it. Moreover, they reproduce quickly, thereby compounding the environmental damage. Due to the absence of talented scientists and of long-term planning skills, the people on Planet A fail to develop an environmentally friendly economy. Planet B, on the other hand, has a high percentage of smart people; who are able to quickly advance the planet's technology level. The people on this second planet soon make the transition to electric cars and solar power satellites. On Planet A, people go extinct due to environmental damage. On Planet B, they thrive.

[DC Tom]

In the midst of throwing stupid accusations against me, you somehow managed to ask a legitimate question. That's a step up for you.

 

In answer to your question, the genetic basis for intelligence is declining because smart women are choosing to have fewer children than less intelligent women.

 

I'd like to add that a trait which is positively selected for at an individual level may be negative for the group as a whole. Consider, for example, a mutation in a harmful bacterium. The normal strain of bacterium is mildly harmful to people, but allows them to live out normal lives. The mutant strain reproduces much faster, and thereby kills its hosts relatively quickly. Suppose you are injected with a solution of bacteria that's 99% normal, and 1% mutant. Over the course of your infection, the percentage of mutant bacteria will rise quickly, because the mutants reproduce so much faster. Just based on this changing percentage, it would appear the mutant strain is more genetically fit. But here's the catch: the mutant strain destroys its hosts, whereas the normal strain does not. Over the course of thousands of years, and a countless number of infections, the normal strain of bacterium has a much better chance of survival than does the mutant strain.

 

Actually, that's not true. Unless the mutation is advantageous in the environment, the mutant strain won't compete with the non-mutant strain. This is borne out repeatedly with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and chlorine-resistant cholera vibrio

 

Suppose Planets A and B both happen to have a modern technology level; and are too far away to interact. Planet A is populated with people who are smart enough to continue using their environmentally destructive technology, but not smart enough to improve it. Moreover, they reproduce quickly, thereby compounding the environmental damage. Planet B, on the other hand, has a high percentage of smart people; who are able to quickly advance the planet's technology level. The people on this second planet are able to make the transition to electric cars and solar power satellites relatively quickly. On Planet A, people go extinct due to environmental damage. On Planet B, they thrive.

 

Suppose your proctologist was your neurologist? Could he remove your head from your ass?

[DC Tom]

I agree that technology and science are not the same thing. As for anthropocentrism, well, that is the driving force behind technology, so I guess you got me there.

 

-Woolley

 

You missed my point. "Anthropocentric bull sh--" referred to this unproven hypothesis you have of "The rules don't apply to us because we're human beings."...this whole humans-don't-evolve-because-we're-techonolgocal thing you're trying to explain. That's nothing but a hypothesis...and not a very good one, seeing that it's basis is nothing more than an argument of "But we're special!" Who says we're special? Who says evolution stops when you achieve technology? Who says technological achievement isn't evolutionary in itself? Where does it say that competitive selection of advantageous traits stops when a species can affect its environment? I can shoot down the basic premise of your argument - that evolution doesn't apply to a species that can technologically affect its environment - with three simple words:

 

Beavers bulid dams.

[woolley]

Actually, that's not true. Unless the mutation is advantageous in the environment, the mutant strain won't compete with the non-mutant strain. This is borne out repeatedly with antibiotic-resistant bacteria and chlorine-resistant cholera vibrio.

 

Did you miss the part where he defined the mutation as leading directly to a more rapid reproduction rate? I'm not familiar with your example, but that seems to be a different sort of mutation than the one you laid out.

 

It's a shame you have to supply juvenile responses to a thoughtful conversation. If this is beneath you, that's fine, I can accept that, but why do you have to be insulting?

 

-Woolley

[DC Tom]

Did you miss the part where he defined the mutation as leading directly to a more rapid reproduction rate? I'm not familiar with your example, but that seems to be a different sort of mutation than the one he laid out.

 

Yeah, I did miss that part. I tend to not read his posts too closely, as he rarely has anything rational to say.

 

Regardless...there's also real-world examples of that sort of mutation I'm aware of (though I can't quote them in detail off the top of my head). And in truth...the same effect generally happens. The fail or succeed based on the environment and not the mutation. Faster reproduction is not necessarily a survival advantage. Again, it depends on the environment.

 

It's a shame you have to supply juvenile responses to a thoughtful conversation. If this is beneath you, that's fine, I can accept that, but why do you have to be insulting?

 

I'll start supplying thoughtful responses when HA starts having thoughtful conversations. Boy needs to go back to the children's table.

[woolley]

You missed my point. "Anthropocentric bull sh--" referred to this unproven hypothesis you have of "The rules don't apply to us because we're human beings."...

 

It's not because we are human beings...thousands of years ago the rules would have...directly and essentially applied to us. Rules are rules. Have we gotten to a point where we can control and modify and direct our species? I think so.

 

Just as we can control our impulses, we can also *control* how nature affects us. It's cold, but I can wear clothing and go into a heated building. I have an infection, but I treat it with a man-made antibiotic. The reality of these things (temperature, disease) have changed not because they have essentially changed over time, but our technology has neutralized or tempered their effect on us.

 

Now, things certainly can change. Let's say 500 years from now all computers are wiped out, all books are burned, and the smarty-pantses are killed in some mass pogrom, all technology is wiped out. There goes the knowledge and the technology, but we're still humans. Would the Darwinian survival of the fittest motifs be more relevant? Absolutely. Because it would be a rough and tumble world *where many people won't survive or won't reproduce*. Then you'll have gene selection happening on a "natural" scale. Today, as I've said, there really is no reproductive stress, no difficulty in reproducing, no real competition between newborns to survive and reproduce.

 

this whole humans-don't-evolve-because-we're-techonolgocal thing you're trying to explain.

No, I was trying to sort-of redefine evolve. Our species is evolving, but not in the way species of rodents evolved millions of years ago or whatever. Our species is evolving...we're getting bigger, right?...but that's not genetics, that's nutrition. We're living longer lives, but that's because of medicine, and not because are genes are getting any "better". So there is evolution, and it's driven by technology, which is not itself a natural force, but an artificial one.

 

That's nothing but a hypothesis...and not a very good one, seeing that it's basis is nothing more than an argument of "But we're special!" Who says we're special?

 

Apparently me?

 

If you don't think we're special, that's fine. So we're no more speical than the average dandelion. That is independent of the points I'm making. Forget the special bit. Does technology guide are species? Is there real competition amongst humans in reproducing? Are there real stresses that make it difficult for the young to grow to reproductive age and reproduce? Do circumstances (what social class, economic class, political climate) have more to do with the quality, even quantity, of our lives completely independent of our genes?

 

Who says evolution stops when you achieve technology?

Things happen. Happens happens.

 

No, evolution happens all around us. Have we, in a sense, overridden it? That's my opinion. If I am wearing rubber boots in the rain and lightning strikes the puddle I'm standing in, I haven't prevented the lightning strike...the puddle...the combination of the two...the reality of the electrical current that could kill me. I'm just using a technologically developed block. Nothings really stopped, I'm just handling it.

 

Who says technological achievement isn't evolutionary in itself?

 

I almost said this for you 5 posts ago or so, I've been waiting for you to articulate this. Because this is a great point (nice of you to make one).

 

I would stress that technology is outside of ourselves. Babies, in a vacuum, aren't going to grow and be technological, but if they grow in a technological world, it will become an acquired trait.

 

Where does it say that competitive selection of advantageous traits stops when a species can affect its environment?

It doesn't say it anywhere, it doesn't need to, we being special and all. We're the exception, not the rule.

 

Now, tell me what competitive selection of advantageous traits is currently happening world wide in our species.

 

Beavers bulid dams.

 

But it's in their genes to build dams. It's not in our genes to build airplanes.

 

You're great at making mountains out of molehills by the way. Later.

 

-Woolley

[Orton's Arm]

As for judging genes...why not? Some people have terrific eyesight, some people have horrible eyesight (like myself). Mine is a genetic deficiency, but it is maksed by technology. Without technology, it would be a genetic deficiency which will also leave me at a fitness disadvantage.

You make an excellent point in saying technological advancement can mask the effects of genetic deficiencies. It's odd anyone would take issue with something so clearly true.

 

I'd like to add to that by pointing out it's possible for a trait that's positive at the individual level to be negative at the group level. For example, consider an allele that predisposes people toward altrusitic behavior. At the individual level this could easily be negative--you make sacrifices without reaping individual reproductive rewards. But imagine a tribe or nation of people each individually prepared to sacrifice for the greater good. That tribe or nation will be stronger than a nation where everyone acts selfishly. For example, government officials in the altruistic nation will uphold the law; while officials in the selfish nation will accept bribes. I'd argue the Roman Republic was built by individuals willing to make sacrifices for the greater good; while the Roman Empire fell because that willingness no longer existed.

 

I'm not saying altruism is determined strictly by genetics. In general, traits are determined by three factors: genetics, the environment, and an interaction term between the two. Take intelligence for example. By adulthood, genetically unrelated siblings reared together show no correlation in their levels of intelligence. Environment alone plays very little role in determining differences in people's intelligence, at least in the U.S. But consider the interaction term as it relates to challenging educational opportunities. Someone with a high genetic potential for intelligence will benefit from such opportunities far more than someone without such potential. To maximize human intelligence, the smartest people have to have the most kids (genetic part of the equation); and those kids have to have the best possible education (environmental and interaction terms). If the intelligence-genes aren't there, you lose out not only on the genetic portion of the equation, but also on that interaction term.

 

That leaves the environmental term as the only possible source of improvement. I'd argue that, in general, a population genetically disposed toward high levels of intelligence will do a better job of creating good learning environments than one not so disposed. Whether it's parents, teachers, school administrators, or others responsible for affecting children's environments, people with low levels of intelligence will, on average, be less able to create challenging and stimulating learning environments for children than will similarly motivated people of high intelligence.

 

Those who honestly expect environmental improvement to counter genetic decline are guilty of a hopeless level of naivety on a number of levels. For one thing, good environment plus low-IQ genetics results in low IQ adults. Beyond that, it's not clear to me why people would expect environmental improvement. Intellectual rigor isn't as high a priority in modern American education as it was a few decades ago. I see no evidence to suggest education in this country is improving either on the institutional level or the individual level. Today's textbooks aren't more vigorous or challenging than the ones used in the early '70s. On the contrary. Today's teachers aren't better than the teachers in the '70s, '60s, or '50s. Nor am I aware of evidence to suggest today's parents are doing a better job of providing stimulation to their children than the parents of a generation ago.

[Ramius]

I'd like to add that a trait which is positively selected for at an individual level may be negative for the group as a whole. Consider, for example, a mutation in a harmful bacterium. The normal strain of bacterium is mildly harmful to people, but allows them to live out normal lives. The mutant strain reproduces much faster, and thereby kills its hosts relatively quickly. Suppose you are injected with a solution of bacteria that's 99% normal, and 1% mutant. Over the course of your infection, the percentage of mutant bacteria will rise quickly, because the mutants reproduce so much faster. Just based on this changing percentage, it would appear the mutant strain is more genetically fit. But here's the catch: the mutant strain destroys its hosts, whereas the normal strain does not. Over the course of thousands of years, and a countless number of infections, the normal strain of bacterium has a much better chance of survival than does the mutant strain.

 

You are good at one thing: taking a single isolated example, and extrapolating it to the entire group/population just to prove your asinine point, no matter how wrong it is. Genetic fitness is going to depend on the environment, not the gene.

 

I can put those same bacteria into a host that has a short life span. What happens? the "normal bacteria dont reproduce enough before the host dies. The fast reproducing bacteria reproduce enough to spread before the host dies. Hence the mutated bacteria are better.