Based on the theory of evolution, were the mutations that organisms went through. . . .(see details)?

Question

in the process of evolving always mutations that helped them to benefit in their environment? Or were some of these mutations fatal or harmful to the organism?

Answer 1

mutations are just random changes that occur. Those changes that resulted in the organism being more successful at spreading its DNA were the changes that stuck around. I wouldn't call them good or bad mutations, just ones that made the organism more or less successful in reproducing or not...and that is how you measure success in the evolutionary world.

Answer 2

First of all, let's agree on what a "mutation " is. Many years ago, in general, a mutation used to result any time an offspring of an organism had a change from its "parents." As science developed through many generations, we now have reached a point where the definition of a mutation is much more specific. Now it usually refers to a structural change in the DNA or genetic code of the offspring from the parent. and 10 years from now, science will likely progress so that more specificity can be achieved.

With that in mind, the answer to your first question is "No Way!" And the answer to your second question is "Absolutely!"

To make a great simplification, a species will try all
kinds of mutations to see what works. In the vast majority of cases, those mutations that are fatal or harmful to the continuation of the organism will not survive. Those mutations that are helpful to the continuation of the organism will survive.

Answer 3

The mutations themselves will have been essentially random, meaning that some would have been beneficial (see below) and some harmful. Probably, a greater number would have been harmful than helpful; there are after all many more ways of being dead than there are of being alive.

It's important to keep in mind that "beneficial" and "harmful" in this context (natural selection) are used in a specialized sense. A beneficial mutation / trait is one that, on average at least, allows the organism to produce a larger number of viable offspring. To take a made-up example, a mutation that doubled the organism's life span but made it sterile would be an evolutionary failure.

An excellent book on this is "The Selfish Gene", by Richard Dawkins.

Answer 4

Just looking at the dinosaurs one can see how they evolved with large bodies and a "cold blood" system. This was great when there were a lot of tropical forests but when the Big Chill Ice Age came their mutations proved to be a downfall. Mutations happen because of a certain environment. Some "mutants" may well not benefit from their variations from their parents. The creatures with more beneficial mutations lived longer and reproduced more effectively. That is natural selection.

Answer 5

There is a lot of discussion about this, but by and large any major mutation is more often going to be deadly. Just a few are amazing improvements on the adaptations of the previous generations to their environment that allow the organism to thrive and pass on its genes. But all in all, most mutations are disastrous for the organism's life and they would be unable to pass on their genetic information.

Answer 6

The vast majority of mutations are survival-harmful, or survival-neutral. Of course we don't know about them because the first type won't show up in the fossil record, and the second type die out so quickly that they aren't in the fossil record. Remember, only a very small percentage of dead creatures ever become fossilized - most decay completely. So, the chance of finding the one example of a fatal mutation is extremely small.
.

Answer 7

Some of them were harmful to the organism, so it had less chances of succesfully breeding and passing on that mutations to other generation, so just the beneficial ones stood the test of time and saw the arousal of new species.

Answer 8

Most mutations are harmful. A few are beneficial.

But it's only the few beneficial ones that survive and propagate into the species. While harmful mutations are more frequent, they just don't propagate, and so they disappear fast. That's natural selection.

Answer 9

Most mutations are "silent" mutations and have no discernable immediate effect whatsoever.

Of the non-silent mutations, most are deleterious - harmful. It's probably a good thing that we get a full set of alleles from both parents, eh, so if we get a bad copy from one parent, we might get a good copy from the other.

Answer 10

Most are harmful or not beneficial and removed by selection of more favorable individuals. Many cause death or nonviable eggs.