Your answer implies some natural force like gravity driving random mutation. That would imply intent in a random process.
Sigh...
That's a peppered moth. Over the last two hundred years they've been studied in detail. In a nutshell, here's what happened to them. "Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths had light colouration, which effectively camouflaged them against the light-coloured trees and lichens which they rested upon. However, because of widespread pollution during the Industrial Revolution in England, many of the lichens died out, and the trees that peppered moths rested on became blackened by soot, causing most of the light-coloured moths, or typica, to die off from predation. At the same time, the dark-coloured, or melanic, moths, carbonaria, flourished because of their ability to hide on the darkened trees." -
Wikipedia
Yes, I know they're still moths. Yes I know creationists dispute this as they dispute everything. What they can't dispute are the facts. Light colored moths were the primary population and a
mutation within the population of existed causing dark colored moths. Those dark moths were then
selected because of a change in the environment which caused the light moths to be eaten. So the population of moths became primarily dark. Thus the dark moths passed on their genes and the light moths could not do so from the digestive tracts of birds.
The environment has since changed back as the pollution has been cleaned up. Lighter colored moths are reemerging again as the primary moth coloration.
This is simple and easy to understand. A circumstance caused one type of moth to be selected.
You see mutations do exact a cost to an organism which must be paid back in mortality. For example I just used this situation on another thread to show how ridiculous the numbers really are for the evolutionist.
Mutations come in all shapes and sizes. In the example above, the mutation just changes the color of the moth. The cost in mortality is paid by the lighter moths being eaten. Otherwise your "numbers" are just silly.
A recent study has determined that deleterious mutations per generation for the evolution of a common ancestor of man and chimps is a U=4.2 for about 5 million years which leads to a necessary birth rate of 131 offspring per female for 5 million years just to maintain a level population.
Except here we are.
You see I am not convinced that a system that relies on random chance can produce any new information in an organism. Such a gain in information would be a reduction in entropy. If such events ever did happen they would be extremely rare because of the low probability of the event. Direct observation has never shown real beneficial mutations to exist.
Oh if only there were some energy source outside of the closed ecosystem of the earth that could add energy to the system so that entropy wouldn't be a factor. Some large, round, bright, hot object...
As to beneficial mutations existing? Here's one in humans.
New Scientist said:
Genes matter when it comes to sport. At the 1964 Winter Olympics in Innsbruck, for example, Finnish sportsman Eero Mäntyranta won two gold medals in cross-country skiing. Though his training programme wasn't radically different from those of his teammates and rivals, Mäntyranta had a distinct advantage: he was born with a genetic mutation that loaded his blood with 25 to 50 per cent more red blood cells than the average man's. Since these cells shuttle oxygen from the lungs to the body tissues, Mäntyranta's muscles got more of the oxygen they needed for aerobic exercise, so he could ski faster for longer.
Mäntyranta got his extra red blood cells because of a mutation in the gene that produces the receptor for the hormone erythropoietin (epo). The kidneys normally churn out epo when oxygen levels in the body's tissues drop, as they do at high altitude, where the air is thin. Epo commands the body to manufacture new red cells, which raises the blood's capacity to carry oxygen. Once oxygen regains its normal level in the blood, the epo receptor should shut down epo production. But Mäntyranta's mutation turned off this crucial feedback, so his body kept making more red cells.
You have now been shown a beneficial mutation and should never again use the line, "Direct observation has never shown real beneficial mutations to exist." or you will be lying. 
