Do all mutations result in negative effects? Why or why not?

Question

miss.rose · Answer

@MissSmartiez

alphadxg · Answer

well what do you think?

alphadxg · Answer

since genetic mutations are random, does it matter?

miss.rose · Answer

I am thinking yes.

alphadxg · Answer

if mutations are random, for exmaple lets say I grow extra hair on my fingers, i mean does that really have any kind of affecT?

miss.rose · Answer

well, no.

alphadxg · Answer

Theirs your answer, some do, and some don't

miss.rose · Answer

Thanks!

alphadxg · Answer

We can't control what kind of mutations their will be, but if its random, it could be good or bad.

alphadxg · Answer

We just won't know

It's like drawing a lottery ticket. We might have the right number, or we don't for example.  

Or we found a random ticket on the ground, we didn't win, but we didn't buy a ticket. We got nothing out of it (imagine finding a random ticket as a mutation).

miss.rose · Answer

Thanks! I got my answer. 

Have a great rest of the day,
~Miss.Rose

misssmartiez · Answer

Sorry I was late. However, no, it isn't all bad in some terms.

If it occurs in a bacteria, it could make it resistant to antibiotics! (sometimes).

Though mutations in a human can lead to unhelpful consequences or aftermaths.. Like if it occurs in a gene that controls cell growth, it could lead to tumors. When cells grow too rapidly. 

Other times it could be ineffective. 

Because mutation in the DNA is mostly corrected by a cell. The cell fixes the error in the code. 

And other times, it doesn't change anything. It is mostly a problem if a mutation happens in DNA section that doesn't code for protein! However, if it takes place in a gene... Well, not to friendly effects...

anonymous · Answer

Read about "Neutral Theory".  @misssmartiez @miss.rose @alphadxg Mutations can occur anywhere in a genome, but some areas are more likely to have a mutation occur and not be fixed.  The effects of a mutation can be beneficial, negative, or neither; this is true for any mutation no matter where it occurs.  Mutations in genes can be all three.  Since the third codon position is often unimportant a mutation there typically changes nothing.  

There is a debate about which concept of mutations is correct.  I think neutral theory makes quite a bit of sense.

misssmartiez · Answer

Thats what WE said. 

I said, it could be helpful, harmful, no consequence, or fixed. WE also gave examples.

misssmartiez · Answer

@mrdoldum

anonymous · Answer

@misssmartiez Your last sentence, "It is mostly a problem if a mutation happens in DNA section that doesn't code for protein! However, if it takes place in a gene... Well, not to friendly effects... " implies that mutations mutations in genes are almost always negative in terms of fitness changes. This is in conflict with neutral theory, and is simply not the case.

misssmartiez · Answer

I see I must've worded it wrong.

I was rushing to get finish and help someone in the mathematics genre.

Believe me I have learned about this, thanks, also, I apologize if any misleading took place. In other words, I agree with you.

Helpful, Harmful, and No effects.

misssmartiez · Answer

I meant in a protein gene, it could lead to malfunctions like CF. Which is caused by a mutation in a DNA's base that leads to an inactive protein. Also is associated with some diseases.

misssmartiez · Answer

However, still it could lead to either three of these effects, I agree! Thanks for noticing my error..

misssmartiez · Answer

@mrdoldum

anonymous · Answer

@missmartiez True, a mutation in a protein coding gene could be negative in terms of the fitness of the individual, but that is not always the case.  In fact, it even depends on the environment the organism is living in.  Sickle-cell anemia is very bad and usually kills people that suffer from it before they can have children (unless their is medical care access), yet despite the negative fitness consequence the faulty copy of the gene stays in the population of certain areas.  Why? Because if you only have one faulty copy you have very little negative fitness effects, and are highly resistant to malaria.

What does that mean? It means that the cost that having two faulty copies kill members of the population is not great enough to overcome the benefit that the heterozygotes receive if the population of humans is in a malaria prone location.  This is why people from the part of Africa with high rates of malaria infections have a much higher rate of sickle-cell anemia and why you never hear about the condition in, say, Inuits.