Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation?

If ToE is true and genetic variation is created (more or less) randomly, then we would expect to see “trade-offs” such as genetic diseases. Coupled with our knowledge of how genetic material is inherited, a total absense of negative mutations would actually be evidence AGAINST evolution. Anything's possible. But if you want to show this scientifically, you will have to offer some positive evidence that this is actually the case - mere speculation is not enough.

The actual definition of a beneficial mutation has been given several times already. What would you actually constitute as evidence that any given mutation(s) has/have been beneficial? Would examples from the prokaryotic world suffice? Probably not as you seem to want to limit this discussion to humans - a severe constraint given how much research is being/has been conducted on organisms both prokaryotic and eukaryotic. Would comparison of genetic data from various species do it? Or is the only evidence you will accept that which at a quick glance is obvious and intuitively shows a positive effect?

Faith, given that this is a science forum, any evidence cited as evidence for beneficial mutations should by necessity be scientific evidence. Hence, (1) any definition for beneficial mutation must also by necessity be scientific and (2) any evidence presented would not have to be limited to direct observation, but can also include hypothesis/theories. Your rejection of evolution seems to stem from your rejection (or misunderstanding) of science. While there is no absolute reason why science should be the only way to examine the world, it is the one being dealt with here. Might I suggest that if you wish to pursue the topic of this thread using non-scientific definitions/standards of evidence that you start a new thread in another forum. Or alternatively, that you start one in the science forum questioning the validity of scientific knowledge as such.