[webstersII]

"The actual pattern is that people, chimps, gorillas, et al all share the *exact same* mutation that prevents ascorbic acid synthesis. It explains this pattern as inheritence from a common ancestor that lost the ability."

I thought the point about "beneficial mutations" was that they served a purpose to help the host survive. If the mutation came about which caused the loss of ability to synthesize ascorbic acid then this would reduce the viability of the host. Doesn't this go against evolutionary theory and the idea of beneficial mutations? Or am I missing something?

[Nebullis]

If the mutation came about which caused the loss of ability to synthesize ascorbic acid then this would reduce the viability of the host. Doesn't this go against evolutionary theory and the idea of beneficial mutations?

Beneficial is a subjective term. Does this mutation cause the human species to breed less? This mutation is a loss of function but doesn't impact the fecundity of human species, which is the only thing that natural selection cares about. It is one of the simple examples where we can point to a common origin of a specific mutation.

[CobaltBlue]

Well, you've certainly put your finger on exactly what it is about evolution which confuses most people. You assume that all inherited mutations are beneficial. There is no reason to assume this.

Sometimes a mutation is just a mutation.

I expect that if I asked a creationist why God created man and apes without the ability to synthesize ascorbic acid, I wouldn't get a more satisfactory response.

[Virginia-American]

I thought the point about "beneficial mutations" was that they served a purpose to help the host survive. If the mutation came about which caused the loss of ability to synthesize ascorbic acid then this would reduce the viability of the host.

It only reduces the viability if there is inadequate ascorbic acid in the diet. Think of cave fish. Normally, any mutation that caused loss of vision would be very bad. But in a cave it's neutral, neither selected for nor against.