Mutations not a "good" thing?, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news91114699.html

[theonion]

http://www.physorg.com/news91114699.html

It appears from this article that the basis for evolutionary theory, that is, chance mutations that provide a survival advantage, are not actually beneficial, if in fact the mutation does not help the animal survive longer. Or, will someone say that 2 legs are better than 4 and that is the reason why Jake died so soon?
Hopefully this duckling will survive long enough to test the theory to see if the 4 leg gene can be passed on to another duckling...

[El_Machinae]

The vast majority of mutations are harmless, null mutations which have no real effect. A significant minority of mutations are harmful, and thus are weeded out. Only a teeny portion of mutations are the least bit helpful, and often they're only helpful when there's selective pressure.

[Rusty Shackleford]

If having four legs proved to be an advantage to the duck. If the duck could find a mate that wouldn't reject him. If the mutation was of such a type that it could be passed on reproductively, then the gene would enter the population and you would see ducks with four legs. However, having two almost fully formed but mostly useless legs is not much of an advantage. With human help the duck stands a chance of living a pretty decent life, but in wild conditions it would most surely not survive and reproduce. As the previous poster said, mutations are only helpful when it provides an advantage in response to selective pressure.

This reminds me of a sign I once saw on a church's billboard. It said "If evolution was true, mothers would have six arms!" I immediately thought, "If God were true, He would give them eight!" and "What an utter misunderstanding of evolution they have!"