In article <ralph.1151056296A at 128.196.137.12>, ralph at ccit.arizona.edu (Ralph M
Bernstein) writes:
>ok, prev post,
>>>I think that we are straying into different semantic uses of terms here.
>>Please could you outline precisely what you mean by the difference in the
>>statements.
>>1) the function of the immune system is to protect the individual from
>>undesirables
>>and
>>2) the role is closer to providing a mechanism of control over the
>>interaction of an individual with other organisms.
>>You see I can interpret these as being very much the same thing.
>>clark is certainly correct here. where is this discussion/thread going?
>this has become an exercise in discussing teleology. "the immune system
>evolved to protect",= teleology. and whethre or not it did, it does (and a
>hell of a lot more). the infectious self, vs non self, has been debated for
>years, (see a charles janeway, immunology today for easy review, 2 years
>old). this protection from self and or seeing foreign antigens has also
>been batted around for years, especially in the autoimmunity circles.
> for some theoretical speculation see an~ 2 year old immunology today
>article on the evol origins of immune system, especially focusing on MHC
>evolv. or more recent see symona bartel's (sp, sorry symona) cursory review
>in pnas, about nov or dec 1994-it includes recombinase activating genes,
>tcrs, ig, ect.
I think you have provided pointers to a few insteresting overviews, but I think
it is important to remember that these only represent a few points of view. I
agree that it far more practical to consider to take it for granted that the
immune system exists and not to question what knowledge others give you;
however, by doing this you don't seek to understand but rather you seek to use.
Chris Thoburn
Chris Thoburn
