Are they generally beneficial or harmful to the species?

Question

Please weigh in with your understanding regarding genetic mutations

Answer 1

The correct answer is neither. Most mutations are neutral in effect. The vast majority of mutations occur in non-coding regions, don't affect proteins or phenotypes. Many of the mutations that do affect coding regions also cause no effect, either by not changing the protein amino acid sequence (silent mutations) or by not affecting the protein enough to change it's function.

Even the rare mutations that do affect proteins in a tangible manner are most likely to occur in somatic cells. Only a small fraction of mutations occur in germline cells and can be passed to offspring. Even in those rare instances where a mutation makes it's way into the reproducing population it still has to have a large enough effect on fitness, one way or the other, to result in selection.

And that my friends, is why evolution occurs at such a slow pace.

Answer 2

On a species level, mutations are beneficial. According to the theory of evolution anyway. Without mutations there would be no genetic variation in a population and thus nothing for natural selection to act on. Any sory of change in the environment and the species within would be unable to adapt to the change, most likely resulting in extinction.
According to the theory of evo, everything on earth has adapted to its environment due to genetic variation brought on by mutations. This plant would be very different otherwise.

On an individual level almost every mutation is harmful.

Answer 3

As long as the mutations don't kill the individual the effect on it's species is beneficial.

Greater genetic diversity within a species allows for greater adaptability should changes in the causes of natural selection arise. New diseases, new predators, new foods, climate shifts etc.

Answer 4

natural mutations can be both, so that species can evolve and adapt to the changing enviroment or new enviroment, but this genetic mutations bring to a lot of species that can't survive or they just have less probability to survive, and they naturally disappear with time.
New species arises every single day and disappear too.

Human influence can be beneficial for example to fight genetic diseases, I hope that genetic therapy will be used much more in the future.

But genetic manipulation is risky right now, because of the poor understanding we have.
However create plants that can produce more food, resist diseases so we son't have to use pesticides, and live with very little water and nutrients is very interesting and promising for give food to the population of the entire planet.
But then Ethics arise: what about a chiken with 6 legs and 6 wings ? with only 1 animal you will have triple food, but it will be socially accepted ?

And what about genetic manupulation on embrions ? You wear glasses, so your son probably will wear glasses, why don't change the dna so he/she will have 11/10 ? and maybe manipulate to have better muscles, better resistance to diseases ?

and we can think about adding to future humans something that nature has not given to us, what about keeping breath for 30 minutes ? and keeping the bones and heart fine in space ? (bones naturally lose calcium very fast without gravity) and more resistance to radiation/temperature/disidratation ? and what about extending our lives ? 200 years with 150 years in good shape ? more ? will that be socially acceptable ?

Answer 5

evolution is at population level
mutation benefits species by further speciation or development of a sub-species

For example a bird is born with a mutation of his beak that does not allow him to crush seeds and eat them, when he is ready to die, he notices a grub and sees that he can get his beak in a crevice in the tree and eat the grub. he eats many grubs and reproduces and starts a new sub-species that primarily eats grubs, so a new population can now evolve

Answer 6

genetic mutations don't really effect whole species, they effect individuals.