why would a mutation in a lung cell  not be passed on to offspring?
596217
A mutation in a lung cell is present in that cell only and the cells that will come from its division. This doesn't affect the genetic composition of all your cells and specially not from the germ line cells (spermatozoides or oocyte).\n\nAny cell that is not a germline cell is called somatic cell. Any mutation in a somatic cell will never be passed on to offspring.
1040546
the virus likes to mutate. so even if they did have one.. it wouldn't work for very long
697726
"Congenital" means "with the genes".  Genes pass on information about YOU to your kids.  Short answer is yes it can be passed on.  That's how you got it.\nDo a little research into your family's traits in this area.  If it's a recessive trait, your bride will have to also pass this gene on for it to emerge in any children.  The particular sperm that "wins the race" may not have that gene, either.\nIf this dysplasia is evident in a number of your family members, it probably raised the likelihood of you passing it on.\nI am NOT a geneticist, human or otherwise.  Someone like that would be the best source for guesstimating the odds of passing it on.
999403
The mechanisms of evolution include mutation.\n\nThe ultimate source of all genetic variation is mutations. They are permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA) of a cell, and can be caused by "copying errors" in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to radiation, chemicals, or viruses. In multicellular organisms, mutations can be subdivided into germline mutations that occur in the gametes and thus can be passed on to progeny, and somatic mutations that often lead to the malfunction or death of a cell and can cause cancer.\n\nNot all mutations are created equal; simple point mutations (substitutions), which comprise the vast majority of genetic variation, usually can only alter the function or level of expression of existing genes. Gene duplications, which may occur via a number of mechanisms, are believed to be the major mechanism for the introduction of new genes; most genes belong to larger "families" of genes derived from a common ancestral gene (two genes from a species that are in the same family are dubbed "paralogs"). Finally, large chromosomal rearrangements (like the fusion of two chromosomes in the chimp/human common ancestor that produced human chromosome 2) almost invariably result in a speciation event.\n\nTherefore it is not likely that all humans will “mutate” equally or at the same time.
427919
I agree with the above post in that if any research is being done, then it's still in the works, so it hasn't been announced yet. And genetically altering things, especially something as complicated as poultry, is a lot harder than most people seem to think. I would seriously doubt that anyone is working on genetically altering an entire species just to raise resistance to this strain of avian influenza. Any mutation in the flu and the genetic alterations would probably end up useless.
901776
It is E\n\nThe reason: \na) Reproductive variations lead to the "better producer" making more offspring and thus leading to more chances for their offspring to reproduce.  For this one, think of gorillas...the dominant Male (silverback) will mate with the females so it is his offspring who carry the genetics into the next generation, and the other males in the group dont pass on their genes. \n\nb) There has to be some offspring that simply don't survive...this is the whole "don't interfere and let nature take its course" thing.  This means that after the "unhealthy" individuals die, the rest (on average) will be better suited to their environment.  Think of it like this... a  human family has three babies but one of them dies; the one that died may have had a defect that shouldn't have been passed on.  Since the parents had two other babies, they have replaced themselves in the population so there will not be a net loss of population when they eventually die. \n\nc) There has to be variations in the genetics of the offspring.  This is due to the fact that for us to become better suited to our environment, there has to be a change in our genetics to produce that change.  If we were exactly like our parents, no changes could occur.\n\nd) Inheritance is hugely important.  Think about it like this: If a beneficial change develops (such as opposable thumbs), what good would it be if it couldnt be passed on to the next generation?  There must be a mechanism to pass the benefit on.  \n\ne) Even though there have been many catastrophic events that have allowed for natural selection, it is not required.  A large eruption may cause the animals who can eat more diverse variety of plants to do better than ones that can't but they may be able to out-compete the other animals anyway.
1104927
read here\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
121961
bud_leaf_... answered it for me, but generally, if you put all of the generation on a pedigree (a family tree that lists similar traits), the carrier always passes the genes on to the offsspring. because the carrier gences are both recessive, if the person mates with another carrier, or a victim the offspring WILL get the disease, unless if it is genetically altered. if the carrier mates it a non carrier with  dominant gene (example, Tt) the offspring will be a carrier. If the mate does not have the disease with both dominant(TT) the offspring will either not be a carrier, or be a carrier. but with the case of hemophelia,it is a sex-linked disease, so the males will be more likely to get it because they have ONLY ONE X CHROMOSOME, WHILE FEMALES HAVE TWO, WHERE THE SECOND  X ACTS AS A BACKUP. THe females will be carriers, while, sadly, the males will be victims. That is a example of a SEX-LINKED DISEASE. It really depends on what type the disease is, though (sex-linked, or just genetic)
631815
The only way you can prevent the person's children from getting the disease would be to change the genetics of the germ cells which pass the genes on to the next generation. These are the eggs and the sperm. They keep the original genetics that are found in the individual so can be passed on to the next generation.
593876
The vast majority of mutations have no effect on an organism at all.  Since even the simplest organism depends on a delicate balance of very complex biochemical interactions, most of the remaining mutations which do have an effect will be fatal.  But the very, very few left will have undergone a mutation that does have an effect, changing some function or property, without killing it outright.  Now, whether it is a harmful or beneficial really depends on the environment.  Say you were born with gills; that would be a very cool mutation, since you'd be able to breathe underwater.  Unless you live in the desert.  Then you're screwed.\n\nSo one answer is, it's a lot easier to spot harmful mutations than beneficial mutations.  A doctor's first job is to cure disease, so a lot more attention is paid to the harmful mutations.  If you've got a "good" mutation, why complain to a doctor?
574626
Interesting question about microbiology. Some recent studies have suggested that many people have a genetic mutation that may result in longer lives.  This mutation is in the mitochrondrial DNA.  You might check out the following websites for more information: www.wired.com/news/medtech and www.imminst.org \nThese sites may go into more detail as to the pathophysiology of the mutation.
643989
Because as a whole, human DNA doesn't change that much at all, so when it *does* change, it is going to be in a place on the genome that is not terribly important, for the most part (this is not 100% true, as single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs abound in functional genes.  but most of the variation in the genome occurs at sites that are not so important).  When your germ cells make sperm or eggs, there is always a possibility that a random mutation may occur.  This chance, of course, is higher if you live in or near New Jersey.  When your child receives this polymorphism, if it is not deadly to the child, then the child will pass it on.\nIn the past, settlers would move away from their country and to another area, and this small group of people would then interbreed and pass on whatever genetic variation they had to their children, and you would end up with a somewhat distinctive genetic profile.  We don't do this kind of pioneering genetics anymore, but the evidence of it is still with us.  Because of it, you can look at the differences between people's DNA and have a decent idea where their ancestors came from.
856325
Beause it you do not go through it, you will not be able to produce the egg and the sperm that make up the baby which in turn grows up to adulthood and produces its own sex cells and the generations continue.  Now you could reproduce with mitosis but you would be a clone of your parent and therefore you would be susceptable to anything your parent is, in other words you would die of the same causes your parents would and at the same time just like bacteria.
307910
Yes, there are deffinatly mutants in the world. However there are both possitive and negative mutations. Most end up being negative because the body is a highly complex and evolved system. However, some times the mutations can be benifficial, such as Einstein who had an extra fold in his brain that increased his ability to manipulate numbers mentally, or Lance Armstrong who has an increased lung capacity. However many mutations are bad such as hemophilia, the Mobius Syndrome and sickle cell disease.\n\nAs fro getting mutations, get into the sunlight. The sun produces mutinogenic radiation. AKA Ultraviolet radiation. You recieve mutations everytime you go outside. However luckly for us, our bodies fix themselves most of the time. however when a mutations lasts and spreads it is called CANCER!!!!!
950574
It's a key element in evolution, and comes about through modifications of an organism's DNA via radiation, chemical poisoning, or simple mischance in cell replication.  The daugther organism can inherit the modified DNA, and it may - or may not - give some advantage toward survival and subsequent reproduction.
690627
A founder mutation is a phenomenon that's often seen in populations that have undergone a bottleneck.\n\nLet's imagine this hypothetical situation, it may help you understand. Right now there are, more than likely millions of individuals walking around the planet who are immune to worst possible type of bird flu. But because humnas aren't being exposed to large levels of bird flu, making this gene that provided resistance not as important as it would be if bird flu broke out inot pandemic forms. (The reasons for why bird flu hasn't broke out into a pandemic are basically because it doesn't have the ability to transmit itself between humans, so that humans can pass it to other humans.)\n\nLet's say that the bird flu finally does figure out how to jump from human to human and the virus starts sipping out millions and millions of people. Let's say its the absolute worst case scenerio, and the bird flu wipes out billions of people.\n\nThose millions of individuals who have a gene that makes them resistant to the flu, the rest of us die. That gene that provides resistance is more than likely a product of a mutation. That gene would be present in the human population for pretty much ever more because the only people left to reproduce were those that had the gene. That makes that gene a founder gene or founder mutation. It was present in a small number of individuals that were present during the beginning a particular event.\n\nIn the scenerio I described, the mutation its self was integral in defining the founding population, but it doesn't allways have to be that way. Imagine for a second that everyone who had the anti-bird flu gene also had red hair. All the folks that survive would also have red hair meaning that the resulting population would also all have red hari. The gene for red hair isn't necessary to survive the bottleneck, it just happened to be the case that everyone who survived the flu had red hair. The redhair gene would also be considered a founding mutation, or gene.\n\nHope that helps.
922928
I know of two other people who had this operation due to cancer and neither one of them survived very long after. They were not related and they did not have the operation at the same hospitals.\nThe thing is that people some times forget when the doctor tells them that the risks of the operation are-------- and maybe 30% chance of survival---the next question being for how long? Lung cancer is a terrible disease. I,m so sorry to hear this distressing news.