Lack of Fingerprints is not a "Beneficial Mutation"

The idea of having no fingerprints may seem a novelty, and obviously, criminals may like the idea. There is a mutation that causes this, and some people may consider it to be beneficial. Beneficial is in the eye of the beholder.

Lack of fingerprints may be a so-called beneficial mutation for criminals, but is a loss of characteristics. It is the opposite of evolution.
Credit: Pixabay / byrev
What some may call advantageous, others would say is detrimental. Sickle cell anemia is "beneficial" because those afflicted can resist malaria, but there are serious disadvantages as well. Some organisms have mutations in the lab that Darwin's votaries consider helpful, but those organisms would not survive in the wild. Having a mutation where people have no fingerprints is the opposite of fish-to-forensic scientist evolution, and there are many societal and physiological disadvantages to this rare condition.

In the modern theory of evolution, mutations in the genome are a key driving force in creating new information. In reality though most mutations are either harmful, or neutral at best. A recent BBC news story has highlighted a family in Bangladesh which have no fingerprints due to a mutation. Is this evolution in action or an example of a harmful mutation?

You can pick up the rest of this article at "The fingerprintless family — A beneficial evolutionary mutation?" Also of interest is this post that includes a link to a video featuring a forensic scientist discussing fingerprints. To see that one, visit "Humans, Marsupials, and Fingerprints". Now, let's sing with Snow White, "Someday, my prints will come..."

Comments