Stupid mutants.

What you think about how you think.
User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:09 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:The general rule among mammals is that the bigger ones live longer. The bowhead whale has the record at 200 years. Elephants live a long time. But humans are escaping this rule. We should live no longer than 30 odd years, based on our size. Evolution, though, has worked a "not age " deal for humans.

Medical and technological innovation have worked that deal. We would have much shorter lifespans if it weren't for prenatal care, obstetrical advancements, vaccines, diagnostic medicine, drugs, nutrition, pollution control, microbiology, personal hygiene, germ control in medicine, climate control, water and sewage treatment, and a million other things.


Which is all true. But the maximum age has not changed. Human life span, in the absence of violence, disease etc., is around 80 years, plus or minus a big margin depending on genetics. Based on size, our maximum age should be around 30 years, and it is not.

Which expert are you quoting this time? Human lifespan has increased dramatically over the past century alone, Lance. Because we're the big brains on the planet, and we've managed to develop technologies to increase our lifespan. From a report by the National Institute on Aging, a division of the National Institutes of Health...
Image
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:33 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:EM

I have answered your questions, and the reference you posted agrees with my position, even though you appear to be unable to understand the way it is worded. I feel like I am whacking my head against a brick wall with this argument.


no, you haven't - you keep evading.

I asked you to explain this:
ElectricMonk wrote:if novel antibodies are created by exposure to antigens, how come parents can transfer their immunities to their children?
After all, memory B-cells aren't anywhere near the hereditary cell lines.
Or to put it another way: why were almost all Native Americans unable to build up a resistance against Old-World diseases if lymphocytes can learn from any antigen?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19793
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:45 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
JO 753 wrote:Lance, EM , bobbo and everybody I'm sure we are all wondering the same thing...

Wen are you going to let them out Nikki? Pleez, let them out! Its horribly hot and humid in there and they can only last so long. The horror! The horror!
Er...I'm completely confused. Let who out? I plead lack of sleep for my failure to be quick on the uptake.

I'd guess yer horde of curds. :lol:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:20 am

So, since it seems like no one else is going to read EM's linked article, I did. Other than such research as has taken my fancy from time to time, I'm no expert on the immune system. However, I'm used to reading scholarly papers, especially on medicine. Here goes...

The very first sentence of the article seems to support EM's argument:
Even in the absence of antigen stimulation, a human can probably make more than 1012 different antibody molecules—its preimmune antibody repertoire.
In that same paragraph, the concept that we're pre-programmed with all our antibodies is expanded:
The preimmune repertoire is apparently large enough to ensure that there will be an antigen-binding site to fit almost any potential antigenic determinant, albeit with low affinity. After repeated stimulation by antigen, B cells can make antibodies that bind their antigen with much higher affinity—a process called affinity maturation.

The issue that Lance raised—how can humans have a catalog of antibodies larger than the human genome itself—is answered in the next paragraph:
Antibodies are proteins, and proteins are encoded by genes. Antibody diversity therefore poses a special genetic problem: how can an animal make more antibodies than there are genes in its genome? (The human genome, for example, contains fewer than 50,000 genes.) This problem is not quite as formidable as it might first appear. Recall that the variable regions of both the light and heavy chains of antibodies usually form the antigen-binding site. Thus, an animal with 1000 genes encoding light chains and 1000 genes encoding heavy chains could, in principle, combine their products in 1000 × 1000 different ways to make 106 different antigen-binding sites (although, in reality, not every light chain can combine with every heavy chain to make an antigen-binding site). Nonetheless, the mammalian immune system has evolved unique genetic mechanisms that enable it to generate an almost unlimited number of different light and heavy chains in a remarkably economical way, by joining separate gene segments together before they are transcribed.

And this, specifically, is how that immense number of "template" antibodies is created during development:
We now know that each type of antibody chain—κ light chains, λ light chains, and heavy chains—has a separate pool of gene segments and exons from which a single polypeptide chain is eventually synthesized. Each pool is on a different chromosome and contains a large number of gene segments encoding the V region of an antibody chain and a smaller number of exons encoding the C region. During the development of a B cell, a complete coding sequence for each of the two antibody chains to be synthesized is assembled by site-specific genetic recombination. In addition to bringing together the separate gene segments and the C-region exons of the antibody gene, these rearrangements also activate transcription from the gene promoter through changes in the relative positions of the enhancers and silencers acting on the promoter. Thus, a complete antibody chain can be synthesized only after the DNA has been rearranged. As we shall see, the process of joining gene segments contributes to the diversity of antigen-binding sites in several ways.

A bit about the timing of the antigen-driven antibody response:
As mentioned earlier, with the passage of time after immunization, there is usually a progressive increase in the affinity of the antibodies produced against the immunizing antigen. This phenomenon, known as affinity maturation, is due to the accumulation of point mutations specifically in both heavy-chain and light-chain V-region coding sequences. The mutations occur long after the coding regions have been assembled, when B cells are stimulated by antigen and helper T cells to generate memory cells in a lymphoid follicle in a peripheral lymphoid organ.

...and about how antibodies are pre-programmed during the development of B-cells:
B cells are monospecific. That is, all the antibodies that any one B cell produces have identical antigen-binding sites. This property enables antibodies to cross-link antigens into large aggregates, thereby promoting antigen elimination. It also means that an activated B cell secretes antibodies with the same specificity as that of the membrane-bound antibody on the B cell that was originally stimulated.

Antibodies are designed to be incredibly specialized:
After the B cells leave the bone marrow, but before they interact with antigen, they switch and make both IgM and IgD molecules as membrane-bound antigen receptors, both with the same antigen-binding sites. On stimulation by antigen and helper T cells, some of these cells are activated to secrete IgM antibodies, which dominate the primary antibody response. Later in the immune response, the combination of antigen and the cytokines that helper T cells secrete induce many B cells to switch to making IgG, IgE, or IgA antibodies. These cells generate both memory cells that express the corresponding classes of antibody molecules on their surface and effector cells that secrete the antibodies. The IgG, IgE, and IgA molecules are collectively referred to as secondary classes of antibodies, both because they are produced only after antigen stimulation and because they dominate secondary antibody responses. As we saw earlier, each different class of antibody is specialized to attack microbes in different ways and in different sites.

Programmed, yet flexible to respond to different antigens:
It means that, in an individual animal, a particular antigen-binding site that has been selected by environmental antigens can be distributed among the various classes of antibodies, thereby acquiring the different biological properties of each class.

What I must conclude from this article is that a normal, healthy human at birth contains a catalog of 1012 different antibody molecules, each with a different antigen-binding site, but with low affinity for its particular antigen. When this human encounters an antigen, his B cells already have a match for it, and can ramp up production of that particular antibody, but with a higher affinity for the antigen.

This is the principle on which vaccines work. The vaccine provides the antigen stimulation for, let's say, measles antibodies, allowing the human to develop an immunity before encountering the actual disease. Without the vaccine, if the human encountered measles, his antibodies would still react to the antigen, but he might not live to develop immunity. Or he might have long-term effects from the disease.

The best analogy I can think of is the alphabet. It's a template of 26 letters with which I can type a nearly infinite number of words in hundreds of different languages. The alphabet is our catalog of antibodies, formed during development. The words are the secreted form of the antibodies once they're activated by an antigen.

Sorry, Lance, after reading the article, I have to say that EM is correct on this one. We have all possible antigen-specific antibodies at birth.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:21 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
Nikki Nyx wrote:
JO 753 wrote:Lance, EM , bobbo and everybody I'm sure we are all wondering the same thing...

Wen are you going to let them out Nikki? Pleez, let them out! Its horribly hot and humid in there and they can only last so long. The horror! The horror!
Er...I'm completely confused. Let who out? I plead lack of sleep for my failure to be quick on the uptake.

I'd guess yer horde of curds. :lol:

No whey!
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:43 am

Thanks a lot Nikki -

mostly for actually reading the link instead of presuming you already know the answer.


I know that this pre-generation of antibodies seems counter-intuitive, but with careful thinking we can see that it is the only way in which a newborn can have a working immune system and how immunity to common illness can be inherited.
Last edited by ElectricMonk on Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sat Jul 08, 2017 4:45 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Thanks a lot Nikki -

mostly for actually reading the link instead of presuming you already know the answer.

It was fascinating; thank you for sharing it. I'm always up for learning new things. Plus, I refuse to hold an opinion unless I have some factual foundation first.
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19793
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:06 am

The pro teases with colostrum. ;)
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12404
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby JO 753 » Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:22 am

Your avatar!
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:28 am

Sad to see Nikki also agreeing with bull dust.

The number was not the number of the genome, Nikki. It was the number of possible proteins, which is E200. That is, the number 1 followed by 200 zeroes. That is because each potential pathogen has proteins on its cell surface which are the attack points for antibodies. Each antigen could be any one of E200 proteins. Your E12 number is woefully inadequate.

What happens instead, is that the antibodies are MODIFIED to form a lock and key attachment to the antigen. EM's reference clearly states that the E12 initial repertoire does not allow for complete binding, and further antigen stimulation (modifying the antibodies) is needed.

Incidentally, your metaphor using letters of the alphabet is quite apt. Except it is amino acids, not letters. Proteins are made of amino acids, of which 20 different ones are in use. Imagine a protein that is 100 amino acids long. A simple chain, like beads on a necklace. Each of the sites could be any of 20 amino acids. So the number of possible proteins just for that model is 20 times 20 times 20 times 20, and so on for a total of 99 multiplications. Now add in all the possible proteins that are more or less than 100 sites. Now add in all the proteins with side chains. The final number is beyond astronomical. And the antigen on the surface of a pathogen could be any of those E200 proteins. To suggest that the body, with E12 antibodies has the capability of dealing with each and every possible antigen is just insanity. It requires antibody modification, which is what I have been saying.
Last edited by Lance Kennedy on Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:35 am

So we all just imagined native Americans being wiped out by smallpox?
Last edited by ElectricMonk on Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:35 am

On your comments on human lifespan, Nikki, you are also implying something silly.
Average human lifespan has increased, sure. But not the length of human life before we die of old age. That is, and always has been about 80 years. There is substantial variation, because individuals are all genetically different. So some people will die of old age at 65 and others will exceed 100. But people have ALWAYS had the same potential life span. Medical science, wonderful though it is, has not yet found a way to exceed this.

In the bad old days when average life span was 21, that was mostly because children dying before they reach age one. The old people of that time had the same expectancy that they have today, about age 80.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:39 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Still waiting for your explanation about inherited immunities.


I gave that many posts back. Antibodies passed on to the fetus across the placenta. It is not inherited in the genetic sense. Nor is any immunity passed on to anything except illnesses the mother has experiened, so that she has the anti bodies for that illness.

Apart from that, it is down to Darwinian natural selection. A population that has been exposed to a pathogen for numerous generations may evolve a degree of immunity.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:43 am

ElectricMonk wrote:So we all just imagined native Americans being wiped out by smallpox?


Are you deliberately making yourself look like a fool ?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:47 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:So we all just imagined native Americans being wiped out by smallpox?


Are you deliberately making yourself look like a fool ?


What?
Steal your schtick?

If lymphocytes can adapt to anything why didn't Americans adapt to smallpox?

Children are immune to diseases their mothers never encountered during pregnancy.

Why don't you just read the link, Lance?

You aren't arguing against me but against medical textbook knowledge that has been established for decades.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:52 am

No one said that antibodies could adapt to just anything. Often they simply do not have the time. A truly serious illness, like Ebola, can do its damage before the immune system can take effective action.

Children are not immune to diseases they or their mothers have not encountered, except for the rare case where a mutation occurs to confer such immunity, and that is seriously uncommon.

Of course, there are always serious ills and not so serious ills. There are roughly 200 species of Mycobacterium. Most cause no illness. But one causes tuberculosis and another causes leprosy. A child who is infected with a harmless bacterium will appear immune, but that is only because it is a harmless bug. Some ills cause mild symptoms only, but that is not immunity either. That is simply because the pathogen is not vicious. In fact, Darwinian natural selection leads to pathogens becoming less vicious, because killing the host is not advantageous.
Last edited by Lance Kennedy on Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:55 am

Soooo....
Europeans had an immunity mutation that the Native Americans lacked, but that had nothing to do with lymphocytes?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:01 am

I have already said that populations may evolve a degree of immunity. Yes, native Americans had less immunity to smallpox than Europeans. That is simply because Europeans had been exposed, not just to smallpox, but to cowpox as well, for many generations. Another example is measles, which kills one in 1000 Europeans who catch it, but a much higher number of Africans who have not developed the same level of resistance.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:07 am

As usual, you are playing "hide the goalpost", Lance.
You started out with no initial genetic immunity and now say it's inherited after all, just not as often as I said.

Please tell me exactly what is false about the textbook chapter I provided.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:28 am

It is not false. Your interpretation is.
You ignore important points, such as the fact that the initial E12 antibodies are not up to the job.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Jul 08, 2017 6:43 am

Actually, most of the time they are.
See, the key-lock analogy is a poor one for antigen binding: it's perfectly sufficient to fit partially to get a recognition response. Then the lymphocyte can mutate it's genetic template to better fit the antigen and ramp up production of the improved antibodies.
This way, an initial E12, evolved to vaguely fit viruses/bacteria in the environment, can generate even more and up-to-date antibodies.
But the basic template needs to be triggered at least partially or there will be no immune response.
Native American immune systems had never seen a smallpox virus, so there was no template to improve from.

And it should go without saying that even though E30 configurations are in theory possible, the overwhelmingly majority will never be generated by a foreign agent because they wouldn't fold. Others will have symetries or similar sidechains that hardly affect their three-dimensional shape and chemical properties at all.
So E12 already covers a vast array of antigens - and we can always add more through evolution.

Is this adaptive enough for you?
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:03 am

Sure.
I am glad to see you admit you were wrong.
Antibodies are adaptive to need, and modified to suit the antigen. That is what I have been saying.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:11 am

Lance, this was my position from the start, and it's what the textbook says.
It is NOT what you said.

It's incredible childish to claim victory after having being proved wrong.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:26 am

EM

I went back over this thread. Your first comments on the immune system were and I quote :
"THE HUMAN IMMUNE SYSTEM CANNOT LEARN ANYTHING NEW. IT CAN ONLY LEARN TO REACT MORE QUICKLY."

That was what started our argument. I have a serious thing against total bull dust. So I disputed your nonsense. The human immune system can and does learn new stuff all the time. When it faces a new disease, it responds with a new antibody. If the immune system could not do this, the human species would have gone extinct a long time ago.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Jul 08, 2017 7:29 am

And I was right - an antigen cannot be entirely new.
Nor can the immune system adapt to anything, as you claimed.
Lance, you thought that the antigen from inoculation comes first before an antibody can be generated.
I have shown that in fact the antibody comes first, without which inoculation doesn't work.

The maturation is limited to mammals, btw. Other organisms do without, following the basic system of evolved immunity.

You are wrong because you didn't accept the genetics of immunity.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:14 am

Again you show your ignorance.

Of course an antigen can be new. The antigen is a protein on the surface of a bacterium or virus, in most cases. New bacteria and viruses crop up all the time. AIDS was a new virus with new antigens that the human immune system had never encountered. But even existing bacteria and viruses can produce new antigens. It just takes a mutation to change the protein. These things happen all the time. So when you say an antigen cannot be entirely new, you are talking hogwash.

The antigen comes first before the antibody that is specific to that antigen. Obviously not before all antibodies, and I certainly never said that. But if you have an antibody to, for example, a flu virus, it is because the flu virus invaded and forced your immune system to adapt. Part of that adaptation was in creating a modified antibody to attack that virus. The virus antigen comes first, and then comes the antibody specific to that antigen.

You have not learned. You are still posting total bull dust.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19793
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Jul 08, 2017 10:13 pm

JO 753 wrote:Your avatar!

:rotfl:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19793
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Jul 08, 2017 10:27 pm

Q, if I may: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=28347&p=588845#p588711 and "Children are immune to diseases their mothers never encountered during pregnancy." - do vaccinations contribute, i.e., a fully vaccinated mother might possibly transmit a greater range?
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12404
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby JO 753 » Sat Jul 08, 2017 10:41 pm

NN wuznt here for the SharkJO atrosity. :)
Gubmint for us
http://www.7532020.com
not the rich.

Electro432
New Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 10:09 pm

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Electro432 » Sat Jul 08, 2017 10:43 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:Q, if I may: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=28347&p=588845#p588711 and "Children are immune to diseases their mothers never encountered during pregnancy." - do vaccinations contribute, i.e., a fully vaccinated mother might possibly transmit a greater range?

All i can add is that mothers milk is the best in terms of supporting the immune system. I've done experiments with breast milk and formula, in that I left two samples in a jar and watched. The breast milk separated into cream and oil. The formula into pink powdery dust. They dont put that on the TV as a counterpoint to manmade suppliments. Need I add any more.
"One's eyes are what one is; one's mouth, what one becomes."
Galsworthy

"The idealist walks on tiptoe, the materialist on his heels."
Chazal

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11063
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jul 08, 2017 10:47 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:Again you show your ignorance..................

Part of that adaptation was in creating a modified antibody to attack that virus.


Is that the way it works? I thought "the immune system" aka: all the different antibodies that exist are basically set. When a new invader appears...all the antibodies go after it but the ones that are most effective at killing the invader are selected to reproduce. The total variety of the immune system does not change/evolve/adapt but the constituency of the available anti-bodies does. This does not alter the constant change of the biomass changing as it does from other random factors.

You are saying individual anti-bodies "adapt." ---?----
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:40 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Sad to see Nikki also agreeing with bull dust.
Sad to see Lance calling a textbook on Molecular Biology of the Cell "bull dust."

Lance Kennedy wrote:The number was not the number of the genome, Nikki. It was the number of possible proteins, which is E200.
Lance, you didn't read my post any more than you read EM's article. I never said that 1012 was the number of the human genome. Please quote where I did.

Lance Kennedy wrote:That is, the number 1 followed by 200 zeroes. That is because each potential pathogen has proteins on its cell surface which are the attack points for antibodies. Each antigen could be any one of E200 proteins. Your E12 number is woefully inadequate.
It is not my number, Lance; it's the number in the textbook.

Lance Kennedy wrote:What happens instead, is that the antibodies are MODIFIED to form a lock and key attachment to the antigen. EM's reference clearly states that the E12 initial repertoire does not allow for complete binding, and further antigen stimulation (modifying the antibodies) is needed.
Again, you didn't read the article. It clearly states: The preimmune repertoire is apparently large enough to ensure that there will be an antigen-binding site to fit almost any potential antigenic determinant, albeit with low affinity. The antigen-binding sites exist prior to birth. When an antigen is encountered, affinity increases. Go reread my post, which excerpts the article.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Incidentally, your metaphor using letters of the alphabet is quite apt. Except it is amino acids, not letters. Proteins are made of amino acids, of which 20 different ones are in use. Imagine a protein that is 100 amino acids long. A simple chain, like beads on a necklace. Each of the sites could be any of 20 amino acids. So the number of possible proteins just for that model is 20 times 20 times 20 times 20, and so on for a total of 99 multiplications. Now add in all the possible proteins that are more or less than 100 sites. Now add in all the proteins with side chains. The final number is beyond astronomical. And the antigen on the surface of a pathogen could be any of those E200 proteins. To suggest that the body, with E12 antibodies has the capability of dealing with each and every possible antigen is just insanity. It requires antibody modification, which is what I have been saying.
No, Lance, what happens is affinity maturation via somatic hypermutation, driven by stimulation by the antigen, as well as class switching prompted by cytokines.
On stimulation by antigen and helper T cells, some of these cells are activated to secrete IgM antibodies, which dominate the primary antibody response. Later in the immune response, the combination of antigen and the cytokines that helper T cells secrete induce many B cells to switch to making IgG, IgE, or IgA antibodies. These cells generate both memory cells that express the corresponding classes of antibody molecules on their surface and effector cells that secrete the antibodies. The IgG, IgE, and IgA molecules are collectively referred to as secondary classes of antibodies, both because they are produced only after antigen stimulation and because they dominate secondary antibody responses.
The article is quite clear on the process. It even includes a visual aid.
Those shaded in green occur during B cell development in the bone marrow (or fetal liver), while the mechanism shaded in red occurs when B cells are stimulated by foreign antigen and helper T cells in peripheral lymphoid organs to produce memory B cells.

Image
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19793
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:52 am

Electro432 wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:Q, if I may: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=28347&p=588845#p588711 and "Children are immune to diseases their mothers never encountered during pregnancy." - do vaccinations contribute, i.e., a fully vaccinated mother might possibly transmit a greater range?

All i can add is that mothers milk is the best in terms of supporting the immune system. I've done experiments with breast milk and formula, in that I left two samples in a jar and watched. The breast milk separated into cream and oil. The formula into pink powdery dust. They dont put that on the TV as a counterpoint to manmade suppliments. Need I add any more.

Just look at colostrum. (Also great for cheese!)

But the question revolved around antibodies passed on to the fetus through the placenta. What is contained in the mother's milk is in addition to that. :-D
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19793
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:02 am

JO 753 wrote:NN wuznt here for the SharkJO atrosity. :)

But maybe she missed your explanation? Let's try this.

Spoiler:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:24 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:On your comments on human lifespan, Nikki, you are also implying something silly.
Average human lifespan has increased, sure. But not the length of human life before we die of old age. That is, and always has been about 80 years. There is substantial variation, because individuals are all genetically different. So some people will die of old age at 65 and others will exceed 100. But people have ALWAYS had the same potential life span. Medical science, wonderful though it is, has not yet found a way to exceed this.

In the bad old days when average life span was 21, that was mostly because children dying before they reach age one. The old people of that time had the same expectancy that they have today, about age 80.

You really should start previewing your comments before posting them. I don't think you could dance faster if I shot at your feet.

For your logic to parse, one would have to accept that old age is the only natural cause of death, and that disease, infection, injury, and such are unnatural causes of death, and that's just not the case. "Potential lifespan" is meaningless, and I'd like to see you provide accurate scientific data that humans had a "natural" lifespan of ±80 years during the Bronze Age, Dark Ages, Middle Ages, Renaissance, Enlightenment, and Industrial Revolution.

Lifespan is the length of human life before death, not the potential length the poor soul might have had if s/he hadn't been struck down by consumption, bled out during childbirth, died of any of the myriad childhood diseases, ignorantly put the privy next to the well, drunk methyl alcohol during Prohibition, and on and on and on.

I'll refer you to the latest genetic studies on gerontology.
Siegfried Hekimi, a geneticist at McGill University in Montreal, and his colleagues similarly found no evidence that maximum human life span has stopped increasing. By analyzing trends in the life spans of the longest-living individuals from the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Japan for each year since 1968, they found that both maximum and average life spans may continue to increase far into the foreseeable future.

Maarten Rozing, a gerontology researcher at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, and his colleagues said the authors of the previous study committed errors in their statistical analyses. "We think that the claim that human life span has reached its limit should be regarded with caution," Rozing told Live Science. "Overall taken, there are very strong arguments to believe that our life span is still increasing, and, as long as our living conditions keep on improving, there is no reason to believe that this will come to a halt in the future."
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:41 am

scrmbldggs wrote:Q, if I may: viewtopic.php?f=32&t=28347&p=588845#p588711 and "Children are immune to diseases their mothers never encountered during pregnancy." - do vaccinations contribute, i.e., a fully vaccinated mother might possibly transmit a greater range?

I can answer that to some extent. Obstetricians are now recommending that expectant mothers get vaccinated against tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis, the current season's flu, and any childhood vaccines she may have missed. Moms pass IgG antibodies to the fetus, which protect it for the first six or so months until it can begin producing its own.

Breastfeeding passes IgA antibodies to the newborn baby, which protect against infection through the digestive tract.

Neither of these passive maternal antibody classes means that vaccination of the baby can be skipped. It just means that the baby has some protection during the first few months when its immune system is weakest. Vaccination is how the baby acquires its own immunity, once the mother's passive immunity "wears off."
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Nikki Nyx
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2064
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:40 am
Custom Title: cognitively consonant
Location: playing croquet in Wonderland

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Nikki Nyx » Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:45 am

scrmbldggs wrote:
JO 753 wrote:NN wuznt here for the SharkJO atrosity. :)

But maybe she missed your explanation? Let's try this.

Spoiler:

I'm lost. Inside joke I missed out on? Or is sleep deprivation taking its toll? :shockd:
What are the facts? Again and again and again-what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history”--what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!
—Lazarus Long, from Time Enough for Love, by Robert A. Heinlein

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:46 am

Bobbo

Maybe I should have worded it differently. No, individual antibodies do not adapt. The process changes numerous antibodies.

An antibody is essentially two protein molecules joined, so they are a bit like molecular tweezers. At the 'open ' end of the tweezers, they are structured to fit against the antigen , which is usually a protein molecule on the surface of the pathogen. It is often called a lock and key fit. If an antibody does not have this modification to make it lock, against the antigen, it is useless. When a new antigen is detected by the immune system it modifies a whole bunch of antibodies to lock onto the antigen. These new antibodies are different at the action end of the molecule.

I should add that the whole immune system is more than just antibodies. It is everything that attacks pathogens. The inflammatory mechanisms, leukocytes, T cells, beta lymphocytes etc.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19793
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby scrmbldggs » Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:49 am

Nikki Nyx wrote:
scrmbldggs wrote:
JO 753 wrote:NN wuznt here for the SharkJO atrosity. :)

But maybe she missed your explanation? Let's try this.

Spoiler:

I'm lost. Inside joke I missed out on? Or is sleep deprivation taking its toll? :shockd:


JO 753 wrote:...Wen are you going to let them out Nikki? Pleez, let them out! Its horribly hot and humid in there and they can only last so long. The horror! The horror!

Nikki Nyx wrote:Let who out?


viewtopic.php?f=32&t=28347&p=588942#p588706
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10226
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Stupid mutants.

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 09, 2017 1:57 am

To Nikki

You misinterpreted the reference. For example, the reference talked of antigen sensitization. I talked of modifying antibodies. But both phrases meant the same thing. You and EM both overlooked that, and that omission made a very big difference..

On E12.
I did NOT accuse you of saying that E 12 was the genome. I simply said that the genome was the wrong number. That is because my earlier reference had nothing to do with the genome, and the genome became a total red herring. The number I was referring to was the potential number of proteins, which also means the potential number of antigens that the immune system might have to deal with. The number I was referring to was E200. If there are E12 antibodies, but the possible number of antigens those antibodies have to be able to lock onto is E 200, it is rather obvious that E 12 different antibodies is totally inadequate. Only active adaptation can handle that situation.

On antigen binding sites. Of course they pre exist. I did not say they did not. But they are inadequate, and they have to be modified. And that is what affinity maturation is. This whole argument came from EM's ridiculous assertion that the immune system and antibodies did not change. They do.

I am sorry, Nikki, but you have been led way up the garden path by semantics. The reference used different words to mine and you thought what they were saying was different. But it was not so.

On the age argument.
Please go back and read where that discussion started. You are again charging up the wrong garden path due to not understanding what the discussion was about.


Return to “Brain, Mind, & Consciousness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dimebag and 2 guests