Probably. Some mutations are good, some bad. If it provides selective advantage for ATP exchange then over a long period of time that mutation could become prevalent if that ATP exchange could become more common if it meant more breeding.
It’s worth noting that modern humans don’t necessarily rely on ATP exchange for “breeding” at this point. The movie idiocracy is an extreme example. But our survival selection method is pretty close to societally based at this point
Edit: for most of human history there are probably some tangible selective advantages to some mitochondrial mutations, just like anything else. I don’t have any specifics
PontificalPartridge t1_iv3gjd8 wrote
Reply to comment by poop_face_monster in Why don't we have Neandertal mitochondrial DNA? by nodeciapalabras
Probably. Some mutations are good, some bad. If it provides selective advantage for ATP exchange then over a long period of time that mutation could become prevalent if that ATP exchange could become more common if it meant more breeding.
It’s worth noting that modern humans don’t necessarily rely on ATP exchange for “breeding” at this point. The movie idiocracy is an extreme example. But our survival selection method is pretty close to societally based at this point
Edit: for most of human history there are probably some tangible selective advantages to some mitochondrial mutations, just like anything else. I don’t have any specifics