Where did you come up with the magic number 33.3333%<quoted text>
Mutations can be successful, neutral, or detrimental.
We're all born with over 100 mutations that neither of our parents have. Even creationists accept this. If you claim you're different then you were either genetically engineered or simply not human.
"Apoptosis (pron.:/ˌæpə ˈtoʊs 18;s/ also pron.:/ˌeɪp ɔːpˈ ;toʊsɪs/)  is the process of programmed cell death (PCD) that may occur in multicellular organisms. Biochemical events lead to characteristic cell changes (morphology) and death. These changes include blebbing, cell shrinkage, nuclear fragmentation, chromatin condensation, and chromosomal DNA fragmentation.(See also apoptotic DNA fragmentation.)
In contrast to necrosis, which is a form of traumatic cell death that results from acute cellular injury, apoptosis, in general, confers advantages during an organism's life cycle. For example, the differentiation of fingers and toes in a developing human embryo occurs because cells between the fingers apoptose; the result is that the digits are separate. Unlike necrosis, apoptosis produces cell fragments called apoptotic bodies that phagocytic cells are able to engulf and quickly remove before the contents of the cell can spill out onto surrounding cells and cause damage."
So I don't think you're referring to the correct thing here.
First of all, we're ALL "mutants". Second you don't demonstrate natural selection in an individual. It is demonstrated in populations. Your statement indicates a lack of understanding of the terminology involved.
I was referring to programmed cell death. Just like we have beneficial mutations, apoptosis can also have an advantage. But that doesn't mean my question or my understanding of it is wrong. Please define how we are ALL mutants given the fact that taxonomy says organisms belongs in many different species. Define species. How can you say we can't demonstrate natural selection in an individual and then goes on to say that we are all mutants. Natural selection is a fact in nature that is 'within' a species. But this definition has been distorted to fit in with lie of Darwin's theory by claiming it can only be demonstrated in a population and not the individual.
"Natural selection is the process by which biological organisms with favorable traits survive and reproduce more successfully than organisms that do not possess such traits, and, conversely, organisms with deleterious traits survive and reproduce less successfully than organisms lacking such deleterious traits."
Do you mean to say that by examining an individual, we can't prove if that individual has favorable or unfavorable traits and whether she can or cannot successfully reproduce even if she's ovulating? lol
Okay let's go with your true definition. Can you demonstrate natural selection in this mutant population?