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.
pertinent points? email me
regards ralph
Ralph M. Bernstein
Dept of Micro/Immuno
University of Arizona
Ph: 602 626 2585
Fx: 602 626 2100
