In article <3or8or$5bp at agate.berkeley.edu>, frauwirt at notmendel.Berkeley.EDU
(Ken Frauwirth (BioKen)) writes:
>Do I get to be Godzilla? :)
Certainly, I grant you the right to be Godzilla.
>>>Moreover, I am distressed that no 'original' ideas or
>>questions were expressed
>>I'm sorry we did not live up to your expectations, but I see nothing wrong
>with discussing a rather significant re-evaluation of some of the basic
>tenets of acquired immunity.
>
It's not that you did not live up to my expectations, but rather that it
appears only a few people responded, and these people are obviously well versed
in the area. It is all well and good to discuss the basic tenets, but it
seems to me that what was begining to occur was an arguement concerning a
particular point of view. I was hoping that many people (not necessarily
familiar with the topic) would provide their own POV thereby lending diverity
to the thread.
>>Perhaps it would be better to start with a more focused idea:
>>>> Why does the immune system even exist?
>>>>I don't know that this is more "focused", but the obvious (if "textbook"),
>is that having some sort of immune system gives a multicellular organism
>a selective advantage. (Unfortunately, this is really the only answer one
>can give to questions about why some adaptation survives the evolutionary
>process). There are lots of parasitic organisms out there, and any animal
>that wants to survive will need some way to deal with them. This may be
>"innate" (as the immune systems of invertebrates, and some aspects of
>our own immune system), or "acquired" (the part of the vertebrate immune
>system that includes T and B cells). The "function" of both types of
>immunity is to protect the organism from undesirables such as bacteria,
>viruses, etc., they just use different strategies (detecting conserved,
>decidedly non-host components, vs. producing lots of randomized recognition
>molecules and keeping only the ones found to be useful). However, since
>evolution is not directed, it is unreasonable to expect more than "because it
>improves the organism's chances at reproducing" in response to this sort of
>question. One might as well ask, "Why does the endocrine system exist?"
>>Perhaps some better questions might be:
>>"What types of 'undesirables' are most effectively dealt with by various
> types of immune systems? Might this affect the strategies adopted by
> different organisms?"
Several points:
1) Parasitism does not mean death. An organism may well carry a parasite load
and be perfectly able to survive.
2) I do not agree with you that the FUNCTION of immune systems is to protect
an organism from 'undesirables'. I have always been bothered by this concept,
finding no reason at all to beleive that the immune system 'protects' one from
anything. It is true that it is far easier to envision oneself as separate
from the rest of the world (protected in a 'military' manner by the immune
system as a whole); however, where is the line between 'self' and 'non-self'
or 'undesireable' drawn. Obviuosly it must be an arbitrary discrimination:
To chose ones 'skin' is insufficient since within one are many orgainisms your
immune system recognizes as 'foreign', to chose ones 'genetic background' is
also a poor choice since that doesn't really make you who you are 'self', and
to chose organisms that replicate on their own as 'foreign' is also
inadequate. I agree with you that modification of the reproductive capacity
may be the safest chioce but I seriously doubt that 'thought' concerning later
reproductive capacity ever enters the equation. The system exists, time
passes, the system is different than when it started. Each component has
acted based on its construction and the enviroment around it. I really don't
think that the immune system has a clue what 'self' 'non-self' 'foreign'
'undesireable' or any other descriptors are.
3) I'm not sure that evolution can not be 'directed' under certain
circumstances. I think that perhaps many possible machanisms fall under the
broad category of 'evolution' and that some can indeed be focused.
4) The question of the reason behind the existance of an endocrine system is
quite possibly the same reason behind the existance of the immune system. You
dishearten me by insinuating that it is a foolish or worthless question.
Blind faith has it's part in religion, but not science. A true Scientist
(with a capital S) questions everything and does not dismiss a particular
question as worthless simply because it is difficult to answer.
5) The questions you give are interesting but perhaps they are slanted too
much to draw a particular answer (much like an exam). First you need to
clarify what and why a particular situation might appear to be 'undesireable'
and then the answer unfolds before you. This is simply a game of checks and
balances for mechanisms, draw one from column A, two from column B, or three
from column C. 'What' and 'How' are merely observation...'Why' is philospohy.
>>>"What are the basic principles that immune systems use to differentiate
> between the Good, the Bad, and the Irrelevant?" (This, of course, being the
> question addressed by our "disappointing" exchanges of "unoriginal" ideas)
I don't beleive that the immune system 'uses' any principles or that it can
differentiate between Good, Bad, and Irrelevant. I think that perhaps it
simply exists, time passes, and things are different than they were before.
(BTW I don't think you raised any original ideas yet (nor I for that matter).
Perhaps a discussion with several POV might do so in time).
>"What are the weaknesses of different types of immune systems, and are there
> evolutionary considerations that might have maintained some of these
> weaknesses (allergies, for example)?"
Since I think that the immune system simply exists and does not discriminte
between self and non-self, allergies (and other so called weaknesses) simply
happen. This makes sense to me without the need to consider anything as a
weekness. Again, I don't think evolution 'considers' anything at all. It just
happens.
>>Or perhaps most interesting:
>>"How did the immune system come to exist - what pre-existing systems were
> modified, and what others had to be invented, in order to come up with the
> immune system we currently have?"
This is indeed an interesting question, and I would like to discuss it, but not
here. Please start another thread.
>>The answers to the last question might help to answer (or, in turn, derive
>from some answers to) the previous questions.
I agree.
>>>>>>Open your minds, think for yourself, but most of all have fun.
>>For someone complaining about a lack of original ideas, I noticed that you
>did not contribute any of your own. What are *your* thoughts on the reasons
>behind the evolution of an immune system?
As above, so below...
I tried to put some thoughts above. By your *your* I assume that you mean to
insinuate that I as well have no original thoughts. That is probably true, and
is certainly true here. Perhaps I am trying to instigate a discussion to
create an environment where new thoughts might arise. It seems to me that
these days everyone wants to keep their thoughts secretive and hidden until
they get 'credit' for them in some journal. It doesn't make much sense to me
to place the honor on who was the first to came up with a theory/idea/concept.
Knowledge is not power, but rather 'understanding' is. And since only
'politically correct' or at least 'semi-correct' ideas get published,
the process of 'understanding' is greatly impeeded.
BTW I do sincerely appreciate the time you took to respond. From your tone I
take it that you were displeased with my last post. I agree that I was
somewhat of a jerk, I am 16 days now without a cigarette and this was just a
difficult day. I appologize to everyone for my tone.
Chris Thoburn
