Before people get irritated because I'm using an analogy about non-living things, just study on it for a spell; I'm talking about word usage and perspective.
When some living things have mutations, some are neutral but the overwhelming majority are bad. Calling them "good" mutations is subjective. A critter can have a mutation that looks good in a lab setting, but will kill it off in the wild. Likewise, some changes can be good in one instance, but extremely bad elsewhere. (They've tried to make something out of nothing with the Lenski bacteria experiments as well, and claiming that sickle-cell anemia's "benefit" outweighs the obvious problems.) Natural selection is not exactly helpful to mutations and evolution, either. All this tomfoolery to come up with "scientific" reasons to disbelieve God are themselves unbelievable.
A big obstacle for evolutionary belief is this: what mechanism could possibly have added all the extra information required to transform a one-celled creature progressively into pelicans, palm trees, and people? Natural selection alone can’t do it—selection involves getting rid of information. A group of creatures might become more adapted to the cold, for example, by the elimination of those which don’t carry enough of the genetic information to make thick fur. But that doesn’t explain the origin of the information to make thick fur.To read the rest of this short but informative article, click on "Beetle bloopers".
For evolutionists there is only ‘one game in town’ to explain the new information which their theory requires—mutations. These are accidental mistakes as the genetic information (the coded set of instructions on the DNA which is the ‘recipe’ or ‘blue-print’ specifying the construction and operation of any creature) is copied from one generation to the next. Naturally, such scrambling of information will tend to either be harmful, or at best neutral.