<i>Single-point</i> mutation. I know the author thinks that leaving out that qualifier makes the claim sound cooler, but it doesn't. It makes the claim sound wrong. Because the unqualified claim <i>is</i> wrong. There are a lot more things in this world than single-point mutations.
Clarifying the headline: Every mutation of a single nucleotide of the human genome that could exist likely does in the human population. Just statistically this is very likely if not certain.<p>His second line of “but all the beneficial ones haven’t had time to become ubiquitous” reveals a weird misunderstanding of how evolution works. Not all beneficial mutations would necessarily ever become “ubiquitous”. And few if any mutations, especially on the scale of a single nucleotide, could fairly be characterized as objectively and universally “beneficial”. Environment and context is crucial.<p>Take the example of sickle cell disease, which can be caused by a single nucleotide mutation. It can cause many problems in its sufferers but it can also confer its carrier with resistance to malaria. Whether its a beneficial mutation depends entirely on the environment, from prevalence of malaria to availability of treatment for the various symptoms.
I don't understand something: I was taught that mutations are random, not even predictable (the latter comes from Stuart A. Kauffman book that I've read recently). How did they construct the set of "all possible mutations"? Do we even know enough on chemistry / physics level to make such claims?
I think there's zero humans that have single point mutation that's immediately lethal.<p>But it should hold true for nonharmful potentially beneficial single point mutations.<p>So I guess X-Men is not entirely accurate unless they are fueled by more complex mutations.
1. Is this because natural selection isn't driving them out anymore, because modern medicine lets them live long enough to re-produce.?<p>2. Is this how you get the X-Men?