That "Beneficial Mutations" Thing

Microbes-to-Medical Doctor evolution requires a prairie schooner full of random mutations that need to be beneficial to each and every organism, but they're difficult to find, and not necessarily helpful after all. Some mutations are neutral, most are harmful, and some are considered "beneficial". (The CCR5-delta32 mutation was at first thought to be very beneficial, but it was later discovered to be associated with a potentially life-threatening liver disease.) "Beneficial" is in the eye of the beholder's agenda. One example touted by Darwinistas is sickle-cell anemia, which sometimes gives a person resistance to malaria. They conveniently ignore the fact that it's still anemia and often fatal.

My upper left arm is sore, which reminds me... On the day I'm writing up this here post for y'all, I went to the doctor. (Blood pressure is up, but I'm sure that the doctor is an attractive woman has nothing to do with it.) I also got my flu shot. So, I decided to do a bit of research from her knowledge. I told her that some people were spreading a "report" on social media, I disremember what the exact contents were, but indicating that there were fewer outbreaks of the flu because fewer people had the shot. What a terrible cause and effect fallacy! She told me that not only does the injection take about two weeks to be fully effective. In addition, the vaccines are made long in advance of the "season", and they are attempting to predict which flu strains will be active. If someone gets the injection and still has the flu, it was from a different strain. There are mutations in flu viruses, but they are definitely not examples of evolution in action. Are the mutations beneficial to the viruses themselves? Depends on the backgrounds, and on other mutations. Ignoring medical advice to get a vaccination because of popular pseudoscience is bad medicine. For more information on flu vaccines, click on "Misconceptions about Seasonal Flu and Flu Vaccines".

Evolutionists claim that certain mutations are beneficial. Many appear to be good on the surface, but there is information they are not presenting that works against their views.
Image credit: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health,
who is not endorsing the contents of this site
Ever notice that evolutionists tend to find a few mutations that they think support their views, then extrapolate that the zillions of mutations required for molecules-to-man evolution happened? Bad reasoning.

Now we're coming to the article that gets featured today, if PCSK9 has a beneficial mutation. There is some benefit in some ways, but again, there is also a downside. This has to do with cholesterol, where some is considered "good" and some is 'bad", but that concept is based on limited views and incomplete knowledge. (Remember, the human genome continues to yield more information as well as puzzles.) Cholesterol is important, but it needs to be used properly on your insides or certain aspects contribute to heart disease. Similarly, this here child is diabetic (doctor says it's under control) and needs to be careful of carbohydrates, but they are also important fuel to keep us going. Cholesterol, carbohydrates, the genome — all were created with a purpose, but we're in a fallen world and things are going downhill mighty fast. Depending on knowledge and point of view, supposedly beneficial mutations may not be all they're cracked up to be.
Random DNA mistakes are central to Darwinian evolution. Allegedly, the huge diversity of life on Earth (including all organisms that are now extinct) was made possible through the slow, incremental addition of rare beneficial mutations over hundreds of millions of years. The theory demands them, but how is a beneficial mutation defined and are there actual examples we can point to that should give pause for thought to biblical creationists?

Tim C. from the United Kingdom sent us the following question:
Hi All,

I have been searching (without any success) on the internet to find a Christian defence to this example of beneficial mutation: people with the PCSK9 mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease. That’s taken from this article [link deleted according to feedback rules].
What is your defence to that?

Many thanks,

CMI’s Philip Bell responds:
To continue reading and acquire still more knowledge, click on "Is a mutation of PCSK9 beneficial?" Oh, and Doc? See you on the 16th.